Would Sampras have won the 2002 US Open if Hewitt beat Agassi [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Would Sampras have won the 2002 US Open if Hewitt beat Agassi

Fedex
08-02-2012, 03:28 AM
in the semis? I know Pete was in excellent form throughout that tournament, especially the later rounds, but Hewitt had his number at that point, beating him 4 straight times, including that destruction in the US Open final the previous year.

I really have a hard time seeing Sampras beating Hewitt if they had played again. Hewitt was in top form, and he had the perfect return to neutralize Sampras' serve and volley attack. I think Pete was very fortunate that Agassi came through that match with Hewitt.

EDIT: If the mods can change this, there was supposed to be a poll included (yes and no to the topic question).

viruzzz
08-02-2012, 03:31 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, our good friend is back, Mr. Setsampras.

(And now we play the waiting game until he appears).

Fedex
08-02-2012, 03:36 AM
My own personal opinion is that Hewitt would have won in 3 or maybe 4 sets if Sampras was serving huge. He had the perfect game to give Sampras fits.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-02-2012, 04:21 AM
hewitt crushes sampras in usopen final 02 if he gets there
hewitt probably crushes almost any S&V player in history

hewitt was a matchup from hell for pete

i suppose in petes younger years he could rally from the back of the court and that *Might* lower leytons huge advantage in this match up

but hewitt is a rock from the back of the net- he's not losing to pete from there
rock solid RoS
goat worthy lob- incredible the saves that shot alone afforded him

its just the worst kind of match up- and i cant see pete turning it around

leng jai
08-02-2012, 04:22 AM
Put it this way - Sampras beat peak Haas in the 4th round so he was unbeatable that year. Simple.

BAMJ6
08-02-2012, 04:26 AM
If he couldn't beat Lleyton in the final the year before, he wouldn't as defending champion

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-02-2012, 04:33 AM
RsSA0JRvcxw&feature=related

ive never seen anyone- not even agassi crush that second serve like that
haters gonna hate but for federer to dominate a prime hewitt.... incredible
in the 90s hewitt could have won 14+ slams

Fedex
08-02-2012, 05:02 AM
Yeah, Hewitt's record against Serve and volley/net players is remarkable.

Hewitt 5-4 Sampras
Hewitt 9-1 Henman
Hewitt 3-1 Rafter
Hewitt 3-0 Ivanišević
Hewitt 3-1 Philippoussis
Hewitt 4-3 Rusedski

Chase Visa
08-02-2012, 05:06 AM
Tough one, as he was playing on emotion quite a lot. He should've, but would he have?

hewitt2002
08-02-2012, 06:54 AM
Hewitt's game was perfect for playing serve and volleyers on fast surfaces. Even Sampras said as much in his autobiography. I defiantly think if Hewitt had played in the 90s with fast surfaces against net players all the time he would have been a lot more successful.

The trouble Hewitt had, after getting to number 1, all the serve and volley players died out and players started playing with more power from the back of the court on slower surfaces. He still adapted his game and got to a real great level in 2004 and 2005 before injuries came along.

Losing to Agassi in 2002 US open s/final must be 1 of his big regrets, because at the time he was Wimbledon champion, number 1, & defending US open champion. He had a great record against Agassi, and if he had won im pretty sure he would have beaten Sampras, as it was a bad match up for Pete. I doubt Sampras would have retired losing another US open final though, he would have carried on playing until he won another major probably at the 2003 Wimbledon.

bounccer
08-02-2012, 10:03 AM
Hewitt is one of the best players of all time in terme of effectiveness against servers volleyers, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are far far away is this departement, he was a nightmare for Sampras, and if Pete had to play him in the final, he would have a very slight chance to win.

bounccer
08-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Pete was weaker and weaker since 1998 and this US Open was see as a miracle by then, he was writted off much more than Federer ever was, i don't think he would be succefull after 2002, Federer's generation was mature by then and if the Sampras of 2002 (we assume he would have a level similar in 2003) would have play against the Federer of Wimbledon 2003, it would be embarrassing for the greek dude.

BlueSwan
08-02-2012, 10:42 AM
Never say never with great champions like Sampras, but yeah, obviously Hewitt would have been a massive favourite for that title. Furthemore, had Sampras not won that title, he would almost certainly not have won another slam. Not AO2003, obviously not any RG, not W2003 with Federer in that form. Basically with Federer emerging and cleaning up the slams where Pete was in contention (primarily Wimbledon and USO), Pete's best remaining chance would have been the US Open 2003. He could feasibly have taken out Roddick - much more likely than beating Hewitt or Federer, anyway.

Mimi
08-02-2012, 10:57 AM
may be not, to be honest

Shirogane
08-02-2012, 10:58 AM
Probably not.

Rafa is the GOAT
08-02-2012, 11:21 AM
in the semis? I know Pete was in excellent form throughout that tournament, especially the later rounds, but Hewitt had his number at that point, beating him 4 straight times, including that destruction in the US Open final the previous year.

I really have a hard time seeing Sampras beating Hewitt if they had played again. Hewitt was in top form, and he had the perfect return to neutralize Sampras' serve and volley attack. I think Pete was very fortunate that Agassi came through that match with Hewitt.

EDIT: If the mods can change this, there was supposed to be a poll included (yes and no to the topic question).

Go to thread tools. And then you can add a poll

IOFH
08-02-2012, 11:53 AM
90s would've been a weak era had Hewitt born 10 years earlier.

clokey34
08-02-2012, 12:50 PM
I am biased but I think he would have romped Samprass again! Shame he could not take down Agassi!

However, maybe Rusty can replicate Andre's efforts and remain a force for the next few years (if his bionic body holds).

buzz
08-02-2012, 12:56 PM
Probably not

Roy Emerson
08-02-2012, 03:46 PM
No.

Agassi did the dirty job for Sampras there.

jcempire
08-02-2012, 03:56 PM
Pete was weaker and weaker since 1998 and this US Open was see as a miracle by then, he was writted off much more than Federer ever was, i don't think he would be succefull after 2002, Federer's generation was mature by then and if the Sampras of 2002 (we assume he would have a level similar in 2003) would have play against the Federer of Wimbledon 2003, it would be embarrassing for the greek dude.

you very right

r2473
08-02-2012, 04:23 PM
I was at the semis that year. IMO, Sampras would have beaten Hewitt.

SheepleBuster
08-02-2012, 04:26 PM
Nope. Sampras was overrated

thrust
08-02-2012, 04:51 PM
If he couldn't beat Lleyton in the final the year before, he wouldn't as defending champion

I believe Pete was suffering from various injures in the Hewitt final. Agassi had a similar game as Hewitt, but better. Pete beat the guy who beat Hewitt, therefore, was the USO Champion that year. This thread is a nasty and idiotic attempt to descredit Petes last slam win. Pete won that torunament, deal with it!

RagingLamb
08-02-2012, 06:16 PM
If he couldn't beat Lleyton in the final the year before, he wouldn't as defending champion

He couldn't beat Safin in the final of the '00 USO either, but he beat him in straights in the semis of the '01 USO.

Sampras was a great champion, mentally one of the toughest players that ever lived, and had a phenomenal HC game.

We will never know what would have happened if Sampras and Hewitt had played instead. Sampras himself said he preferred to play Agassi in the final, and he did.

I believe Pete was suffering from various injures in the Hewitt final. Agassi had a similar game as Hewitt, but better. Pete beat the guy who beat Hewitt, therefore, was the USO Champion that year. This thread is a nasty and idiotic attempt to descredit Petes last slam win. Pete won that torunament, deal with it!

Agree with you there.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-02-2012, 06:29 PM
hewitt didnt just beat sampras in 2001
hewitt mentally violated sampras
physically abused him
skillfully tortured him
tennis wise it was as one sided as grafs 88 RG win

in 2000 when hewitt was no where near his prime- he gave pete all he could handle- and choked away the win

pete had no chance to win against hewitt


safin turned up to play at slams twice
in 2000 he destroyed a still very good sampras (who who lucked out against a chokoing hewitt)
and 2005 when he beat the greatest player to ever play

and lets not forget Vulture-pras
in 1998 playing every MM tourni to keep hold of his ranking

IOFH
08-02-2012, 06:31 PM
2 bredstix is pretty conclusive, but who knows. Every match is different.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-02-2012, 06:37 PM
^not in this case
hewitt was made to beat sampras
sampras couldnt stay with him at the baseline
sampras was getting slaughtered at the net
and his serve was ntohing for hewitt

pete had nothing

fed at least won 10 times against a nightmare matchup

pete held serve 87 times going into the final
beat rafter agassi and a safin
pete's form was amazing going into the final
then got double bread sticked

pete was worse in 2002 than in 2001
he would have probably won wimbledon if it wasnt for federer

396qtU_GcnA&feature=related

asmazif
08-02-2012, 06:40 PM
if agassi hadn't lost in the final, he would have won i'm sure of it

Seleshfan
08-02-2012, 06:46 PM
Well that is the great thing about tennis, you just never know until the last point. Personally, I think at that point Hewitt had Sampras's number. I remember thinking, how in the hell does Sampras lose to this skinny little boy? I was so thrilled when Agassi beat him in that semi, because I thought at that time no way in hell is Sampras gonna beat Hewitt in that final. In the end, I was thrilled Sampras won.

Fedex
08-03-2012, 02:17 AM
bump. poll added.

Macbrother
08-03-2012, 02:37 AM
I believe Pete was suffering from various injures in the Hewitt final. Agassi had a similar game as Hewitt, but better. Pete beat the guy who beat Hewitt, therefore, was the USO Champion that year. This thread is a nasty and idiotic attempt to descredit Petes last slam win. Pete won that torunament, deal with it!

This is a pretty gross oversimplification. Agassi is an offensive baseliner, Hewitt a counterpuncher that thrives on the pace Sampras would give. Furthermore defensively and athletically Hewitt is leagues beyond Agassi; even though they are both baseliners really Hewitt presents a completely different challenge and just absolutely thrived against S/V'ers. While Sampras certainly played at an inspired level during that Open I would have to say he'd be the underdog.

Brick Top
08-04-2012, 01:28 PM
Hewitt would have lobbed him all the way to victory.

sexybeast
08-04-2012, 02:23 PM
No, Sampras wouldnt win a set against Hewitt.

betowiec
08-04-2012, 06:35 PM
guessing game

thrust
08-05-2012, 12:53 AM
So Hewitt had a better service return and ground strokes than Andre? All great players have off days. Pete was past his best in 01. Hewitt won 2 slams in a transition period. Agassi won 8, Pete 14 in a very tough era. Reading this thread one would think Hewitt was an all-time great. Is Nadal better than Federer because he dominated Roger in slam finals? Of course not!

Fedex
08-05-2012, 01:25 AM
So Hewitt had a better service return and ground strokes than Andre? All great players have off days. Pete was past his best in 01. Hewitt won 2 slams in a transition period. Agassi won 8, Pete 14 in a very tough era. Reading this thread one would think Hewitt was an all-time great. Is Nadal better than Federer because he dominated Roger in slam finals? Of course not!

Calm down. No one is claiming that Hewitt was better than Sampras. But he was a decidedly better player at that point in time, and he had a nightmare game for Sampras. Hell, Hewitt was giving Sampras hell in 98 and 99 before his decline period.

leng jai
08-05-2012, 01:40 AM
Hewitt was a better defensive returner of first serves than Agassi which is very important against a serve & volleyer. Agassi guessed too much on the first serve and didn't neutralise Sampras' first serve the same way Hewitt did. Factor in one of the best lobs ever and you've got a player that would give any net rusher fits. The point isn't that he was a better player than Agassi - he simply matched up more effectively.

Looner
08-05-2012, 01:40 AM
This is a nice thread. A nice addition to it would be "Would Federer have won Wimbledon 2012 if Nadal had not lost to Rosol".

Net Cord
08-05-2012, 12:47 PM
Hewitt definitely had Pete's number late in Pete's career when Pete's form and energy had declined significantly, but I'm pretty surprised by the people saying that (a) Hewitt would have had his number if they played earlier in Pete's career (1993-1998 or 1999), and/or (2) that Hewitt would have been incredible against the big serve & volleyers of the earlier generation. The big serve & volleyer that Hewitt played most* in his prime was Greg Rusedski. They played 6 times from 1999 to 2002, with each taking 3 matches. Then, in 2005, Hewitt slipped past a 32 year-old Rusedski who was well past his prime, 1-6, 7-5, 6-4 in Cincinnati. When you can't even distinguish yourself against Greg Rusedski in the early 2000s, you don't have much of a case for being any great shakes against the great serve & volleyers of the '80s and '90s.

*He did have more matches against Henman, but Henman wasn't a big serve & volleyer in the Sampras mold.

Drugs Ruin Lives
08-05-2012, 03:20 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrcew113XI1qmurjfo1_400.gif

justine&coria
08-05-2012, 04:41 PM
Very interesting thread. I'm pretty sure Sampras would have won the tournament if Hewitt beat Agassi and he beat Hewitt in the finals.

Macbrother
08-05-2012, 04:41 PM
Hewitt definitely had Pete's number late in Pete's career when Pete's form and energy had declined significantly, but I'm pretty surprised by the people saying that (a) Hewitt would have had his number if they played earlier in Pete's career (1993-1998 or 1999), and/or (2) that Hewitt would have been incredible against the big serve & volleyers of the earlier generation.
Yeah I mean what in the world would give us that idea:
Hewitt 5-4 Sampras
Hewitt 9-1 Henman
Hewitt 3-1 Rafter
Hewitt 3-0 Ivanišević
Hewitt 3-1 Philippoussis
Hewitt 4-3 Rusedski

Forgetting the fact that he had great passing shots, great defense, incredible return and arguably the greatest lob ever. You're right Hewitt wouldn't have stood a chance.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-05-2012, 05:36 PM
*He did have more matches against Henman, but Henman wasn't a big serve & volleyer in the Sampras mold.

hewitt ivanesevic 3-0
all one grass
hewitt never lost a set

beat krajicek in oct 2000 in straights
just after richard pushed pete hard at the us open

5-1 against taylor dent (never lost to him on grass)

hewitt- sampras 5-4
in their last 4 matches pete won 1 set
hewitt bagled him gave 2 breadsticks and 2 6-2s
at queens in 1999 (the year pete destroyed agassi at the wimby finl)
hewitt pushed pete in a 3rd set tiebreak
YEAR LATER hewitt destroys him in straights
year later beats him again
their H2H is 2-1 to hewitt on grass- but pete barely that first match against hewitt

how about federer- roger used to serve and volley with all court game (won wimbledon in 03 using serve and volley)
didnt adjust to baseliner attacker untill 2004
hows hewitts H2H with federer 1.0
7-2 to hewitt

hewitt llodra 4-0

hewitt Philippoussis 3-1

Net Cord
08-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Yeah I mean what in the world would give us that idea:


Forgetting the fact that he had great passing shots, great defense, incredible return and arguably the greatest lob ever. You're right Hewitt wouldn't have stood a chance.

I'm not saying that he wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm just saying that most of his wins against big serve and volleyers came against players who were (well) past their primes. Sampras and Ivanišević, for instance, were nowhere near their peaks when they played Hewitt in the 2000s. The question is whether Hewitt could have beaten them had he played them in their primes in 1998 and earlier. And, as I said, the best evidence we have of how he would have done was his H2H record against the big serve and volleyer he played the most: Greg Rusedski. Rusedski, who was also past his prime after 1998, was a solid 3-3 against Hewitt from 1999-2002 and then lost the tiebreaker in 2005 when he was 33. That doesn't speak very well for Hewitt's ability to beat big serve and volleyers at their peaks.*

*And no, Henman and Rafter were not *BIG* serve and volleyers. They were very good serve and volleyers who did not have big serves.

hewitt2002
08-05-2012, 09:18 PM
Philipoussis was a big server and was more Hewitt's age then Greg. Hewitt was 3-1 head to head against him including 1 match on grass

Net Cord
08-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Philipoussis was a big server and was more Hewitt's age then Greg. Hewitt was 3-1 head to head against him including 1 match on grass

Yes, Hewitt was 3-1 against Philippoussis, with 1 of those wins coming on clay. Mark of course was an underachiever, reaching a career-high of #8 and spending most of his career outside of the top 10. And Hewitt was 4-3 against a post-peak Rusedski, with that last win coming when Greg was 32. Those stats aren't exactly giving me a wealth of confidence that Hewitt could hang with Sampras or Ivanišević (or even Krajicek) in the mid-1990s, Becker in the mid-1980s to early 1990s, etc.

Macbrother
08-06-2012, 03:50 AM
I'm not saying that he wouldn't have stood a chance. I'm just saying that most of his wins against big serve and volleyers came against players who were (well) past their primes. Sampras and Ivanišević, for instance, were nowhere near their peaks when they played Hewitt in the 2000s. The question is whether Hewitt could have beaten them had he played them in their primes in 1998 and earlier. And, as I said, the best evidence we have of how he would have done was his H2H record against the big serve and volleyer he played the most: Greg Rusedski. Rusedski, who was also past his prime after 1998, was a solid 3-3 against Hewitt from 1999-2002 and then lost the tiebreaker in 2005 when he was 33. That doesn't speak very well for Hewitt's ability to beat big serve and volleyers at their peaks.*

*And no, Henman and Rafter were not *BIG* serve and volleyers. They were very good serve and volleyers who did not have big serves.

Rusedski is not the one he played the most of the list so why are you harping on him? Your best argument is someone who has yet another losing record to Hewitt? Last I checked, Ivanisevic qualifies as a "big" server, right? He should, seeing as he had arguably the biggest of anyone on that list. Considering his greatest level of play came in '01, and two of Hewitt's (grass) victories came in '00 and that very year, I'd hardly consider that "well past" his prime. The fact of the matter is, virtually every facet of Hewitt's game was taylor made for S/V players and it showed in the only objective statistic we have, his h2h numbers. Even back in '98 and '99 while Hewitt's game was still developing he was still giving Sampras fits, pushing every meeting they had to tiebreakers or three setters.

Add into that the numbers mentioned above by pray-for-palestine including Dent and S/V Federer and the picture should be rather undeniably clear: Hewitt gobbled up big servers and thrived on a target at net.

rocketassist
08-06-2012, 04:04 AM
Some other what if scenarios..

Would JCF still have won RG 2003 if Coria'd beat Verkerk?
Who would have won AO 2010 if Davydenko hadn't choked against Federer?
Would Agassi have beat Goran in 2001 if he'd got past Rafter?
If Safin was fit in 2003 would he have won the AO?
If Roddick hadn't mugged out to Lu at Wimbledon 2010 could he have gone on to win it?

Mark Lenders
08-06-2012, 04:07 AM
Some other what if scenarios..

Would JCF still have won RG 2003 if Coria'd beat Verkerk?
Who would have won AO 2010 if Davydenko hadn't choked against Federer?
Would Agassi have beat Goran in 2001 if he'd got past Rafter?
If Safin was fit in 2003 would he have won the AO?
If Roddick hadn't mugged out to Lu at Wimbledon 2010 could he have gone on to win it?

Imo:

Yes (Coria is a mental midget)

Murray

Yes

No

No

Net Cord
08-06-2012, 12:10 PM
Rusedski is not the one he played the most of the list so why are you harping on him? Your best argument is someone who has yet another losing record to Hewitt? Last I checked, Ivanisevic qualifies as a "big" server, right? He should, seeing as he had arguably the biggest of anyone on that list. Considering his greatest level of play came in '01, and two of Hewitt's (grass) victories came in '00 and that very year, I'd hardly consider that "well past" his prime. The fact of the matter is, virtually every facet of Hewitt's game was taylor made for S/V players and it showed in the only objective statistic we have, his h2h numbers. Even back in '98 and '99 while Hewitt's game was still developing he was still giving Sampras fits, pushing every meeting they had to tiebreakers or three setters.

Add into that the numbers mentioned above by pray-for-palestine including Dent and S/V Federer and the picture should be rather undeniably clear: Hewitt gobbled up big servers and thrived on a target at net.

1. Rusedski is the big serve and volleyer whom Hewitt played the most on the list. Again, I'm distinguishing between (1) serve & volleyers like Henman and Rafter, who had great volleys but not the biggest of serves; and (2) BIG serve & volleyers like Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanišević, and, yes, Rusedski, who had huge serves that they followed into net. Hewitt obviously had a great H2H record against guys in category 1. But the point made by some on this thread was that Hewitt would have been dominant against the big serve & volleyers of the 1990s if he were born a generation earlier. I don't buy it, and I think that his blah H2H results against Rusedski, far from the greatest big serve & volleyer, backs me up.

2. I don't buy at all that Ivanišević's greatest level of play came in 2001. Sure, he had that crazy run to the Wimbledon crown that year, but I think that most acknowledge that he played better at Wimbledon in some of the years when he lost to Sampras. Besides, the 2001 Wimbledon result was obviously an anomaly. Besides that Wimbledon victory, he was 22-22 for the year in 2001 and only finished #12. From 1990-1996, he finished year-end #9, #16, #4, #7, #5, #10, and #4. THOSE were his prime years, and you can maybe throw in 1996 (#15) and 1997 (#12) as well. If Hewitt had played that Ivanišević, a played much better than the Rusedski of 1999-2002, I don't think that he would have fared vey well. And if Hewitt had played Sampras from 1993-1998, I don't think he would have had a chance.

mreccentric
08-06-2012, 12:35 PM
I can't believe, Pete Sampras doesn't has a Career Slam, but Andre Agassi has it!