[nick the greek]

Ferru in 3 much easier than most people expect.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

The only difference between them is that Hewitt played in a mug era and managed to vulture 2 slams and a few dozen weeks at #1 before Olderer made him his bitch (USO 2006 final ), thus more achievements. In this era, his carrer would look similar to Ferrer: No slam finals, no masters titles and no weeks at #1.

You gotta be kidding me. Hewitt in his prime was an absolutely brilliant counterpuncher. He was also maybe the best % player tennis has ever seen, he had entire matches and tournament with barely any wrong shot selection. Any comparison to Ferrer is beyond a joke, Ferrer is at best a very, very poor man's version of what Hewitt used to be in his prime, at a push.

Even past his prime and after millions or surgeries, Hewitt has still put a better fight vs Nole at AO and Olympics than Ferrer has been able to put this year when facing any of the top 3. A prime Hewitt would be ranked #4 in 2012, with a shot at any title as long as he didn't have to face Federer (or Nadal on clay).

[djokovicgonzalez]

If you place Hewitt in Ferrer's career I actually mostly agree with topspindoc. but a big difference is mental toughness. Prime Hewitt would never have choked to Murray at 2010 AO or 2011 Wimbledon. He might still have a slam, he'd at least have a final. Also, just in terms of match ups, they have different strong sides. Hewitt is, IMO, least talented no 1 ever, just a bit more than Ferrer. But I consider that an honor, a show of how much fight and well he had, while Ferrer has had his chances to do big things and fallen apart when it matters

Anyway, on topic, I think Ferrer is too good anymore and Hewitt will be tired. Ferrer in 4. I think I'll root for Rusty though

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by djokovicgonzalez

If you place Hewitt in Ferrer's career I actually mostly agree with topspindoc. but a big difference is mental toughness. Prime Hewitt would never have choked to Murray at 2010 AO or 2011 Wimbledon. He might still have a slam, he'd at least have a final. Also, just in terms of match ups, they have different strong sides. Hewitt is, IMO, least talented no 1 ever, just a bit more than Ferrer. But I consider that an honor, a show of how much fight and well he had, while Ferrer has had his chances to do big things and fallen apart when it matters

Anyway, on topic, I think Ferrer is too good anymore and Hewitt will be tired. Ferrer in 4. I think I'll root for Rusty though

So basically Hewitt is a champion and a relentless fighter and Ferrer is a relentless choker? That pretty much sums it up.

Hewitt's talent is underrated though, he plays the percentages better than any other player I've seen. He might be lacking as far as big weapons are concerned, but he never beats himself, you beat to beat him (in his prime of course).

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

So basically Hewitt is a champion and a relentless fighter and Ferrer is a relentless choker? That pretty much sums it up.

Ferrer isn't a choker, he lacks weapons to beat the big guns - just like Hewitt did once Olderer peaked and transitional era ended, so Hewitt faded. Once again the era you play makes a huge difference. I don't see him going through combination of Nadal/Federer/Djokovic in slams during 2005/2012 (hell, even wildly incosistent guys like Safin routined Hewitt if they were hot, he simply had no weapons to compete against them even when Olderer lost (AO 2005)) - just like Ferrer could not. Hewitt took advantage, props to him for winning something with such a limited game, but by no means he would even come close to a slam today.

Hewitt's talent is underrated though, he plays the percentages better than any other player I've seen. He might be lacking as far as big weapons are concerned, but he never beats himself, you beat to beat him (in his prime of course).

That's not talent IMO. Technique-wise, he had an awful forehand and literally WTA serve. That left him with RoS, defense and percentage play....exactly the same thing Ferrer excels at. Running down every ball like a dog which completely ruined his body by early 20's is not a good example of talent.

[Tyson0712]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

The only difference between them is that Hewitt played in a mug era and managed to vulture 2 slams and a few dozen weeks at #1 before Olderer made him his bitch (USO 2006 final ), thus more achievements. In this era, his carrer would look similar to Ferrer: No slam finals, no masters titles and no weeks at #1.

I'll give you one difference, Hewitt has starpower whilst Ferrer does not. I'll give you another, Hewitt has charisma and Ferrer once again does not. I could give you more but i don't need to because you probably get the drift by now.

Hewitt to get rid of the last of the vultures in 4 sets.

[finishingmove]

Ferrer in four if his thoughts vulture off somewhere for a bit.

[Slade]

Ferrer in 4

[Sanya]

2 wariors on court, it will be a battle. Hope Lleyton somehow takes it in 5 epic sets, bit think David will keep going after 4 brutal ones.

[Ben D.]

Hewitt can become one my fav players if he wins this match. I like Ferrer more, but hes too good for Richie, so.

[Sombrerero loco]

ferru should really win this, i think he will win too

[Andi-M]

Surely the no 4 seed takes this in straights. Hewitt must be exhausted after Muller match and he aint all that when rested and fit.

[Allez]

Hewitt in 5 for old times sake.

[Mercury]

Pics in 4 long grueling sets.

[ossie]

i'm not seeing the 'tennis will lose' option.