I think Lleyton Hewitt is a superstar

Here he is, way past it, ravaged by injury, his game no longer suited to the modern equipment, and he's giving the 2012 #1 a run for his money, taking a set.

Can all the people who knock both him, his achievements, and the era in which he was in his pomp please take note and get some perspective?

What a guy, never bowed even if he's beaten, a true successor to Jimmy Connors.

Can never take anything away from a player like that. A physical player playing within the rules, mental strength, determination and obvious desire to adapt his game for todays conditions and keep improving.

Well said.. a real fighter

I didn't see too much of him in his early days but I can imagine it must have taken a lot to bring his game to where it is to play the way he did today.

Agree with the OP - what's great is he still seems to love playing and competing.

I think yes, Hewitt at his peak is really close to Djokovic at his peak. The only remarkable difference is that Hewitt has expressed his best level for a shorter period (two years circa) while Djokovic is probably set to play at this level for some years......

True, but Lleyton had terrible luck with injuries, plus ran into the emergent GOAT. Imagine if he'd had an invincibility egg........

Yes or a gluten free diet for instance......

I don't think this has diminished Djokovic's chances in any way though.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't think this has diminished Djokovic's chances in any way though.

Totally agree, he's still the red hot favourite.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes or a gluten free diet for instance......

Don't worry about that Hewitt was also gluten free in his hey days as he is now!

...and lets bear in mind his serve was abject today too....169kmh average first speed and around 50% 1st serves....Novak would have found it much harder today had Lleyton been winning many more free points and making sets tighter, thus turning up the pressure dial at the back end of the set.

We know Lleyton has always had the talent...lets not forget he beat Federer on grass at Halle final not too long ago.

Yes Lydian,

His serve really let him down today

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think yes, Hewitt at his peak is really close to Djokovic at his peak. The only remarkable difference is that Hewitt has expressed his best level for a shorter period (two years circa) while Djokovic is probably set to play at this level for some years......

Is today 1st April?

The only thing Hewitt at his peak will be close to Djokovic at is running in a straight line.

Anyway, have a soft spot for Hewitt and think injuries ruined his career yet 2 slams is 2 more than some can ever ask for but unfortunately the facts are, the game passed him and left him behind easily. Great fighter on court but not talented and good enough to have become a true great of tennis. A shame about his injuries though, he could have made the weak era less of a mockery than it was.

Yeah, that must be why, at virtually 32 and crocked, and as left behind by technology and conditions as you rightly state, that he took a set of the 25 year old best that 2012 has to offer.

Like I said, let's wait to see Djokovic (and Nadal) at 32 before dismissing a player like Hewitt, or belittling his achievements.

Federer v peak Hewitt: 60 76 60

Hewitt is a great fighter but Federer did not give him the ball. That's what today's players can't quite do.

Tenez wrote:Federer v peak Hewitt: 60 76 60

Hewitt is a great fighter but Federer did not give him the ball. That's what today's players can't quite do.

Hewitt's peak year being 2004? He was already well on the slide by then and not just due to the rise of a better player in Federer - whose records are strong enough without this kind of facts-twisting.

I am not twisting fact. You are maybe mixing up his best year with his preak but in 2004 and 2005 he was stil on top of his game. Federer stopped him at USO and Wimbledon a few times.


Are you saying that at 21 he was past his peak?

I agree with SA. Hewitt and the peak Federer (2003-2007) belonged to the whelk era, whereas Djokovic and Nadal belong to the jellied eel era. And it is well established that jellied eels are superior to whelks.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think yes, Hewitt at his peak is really close to Djokovic at his peak. The only remarkable difference is that Hewitt has expressed his best level for a shorter period (two years circa) while Djokovic is probably set to play at this level for some years......

Is today 1st April?

The only thing Hewitt at his peak will be close to Djokovic at is running in a straight line.

Anyway, have a soft spot for Hewitt and think injuries ruined his career yet 2 slams is 2 more than some can ever ask for but unfortunately the facts are, the game passed him and left him behind easily. Great fighter on court but not talented and good enough to have become a true great of tennis. A shame about his injuries though, he could have made the weak era less of a mockery than it was.

Yes I think whoever has seen how dominant Hewitt was in 2001 and 2002 would think they are comparable players. Said that when I say they were close at their peak I still think the Djoker would have an edge on Hewitt, not a massive gap though. Talentwise I don't see the gap that you seem to spot between the two: both players are/were incredible athlets, great competitors but I don't see either of them as immensely talented players.....

Tenez wrote:Federer v peak Hewitt: 60 76 60

Hewitt is a great fighter but Federer did not give him the ball. That's what today's players can't quite do.

Federer was on awesome form that USO. And to then think a 34 yr old Agassi took Federer to 5 sets in that form...

Before todays match a lot of people were suggesting that Djokovic is far better than even a peak Hewitt and listing the areas in which he surpasses Hewitt. However they neglected the areas in which Hewitt surpasses Novak, namely his net game - he is far more comfortable at the net and has better hands/touch - and his mental/fighting spirit. Hewitt was a tough cookie to crack. Just ask sampras. Whilst Novak has made huge strides in that area he still looks a little brittle to me at times.

Very true

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer v peak Hewitt: 60 76 60

Hewitt is a great fighter but Federer did not give him the ball. That's what today's players can't quite do.

Federer was on awesome form that USO. And to then think a 34 yr old Agassi took Federer to 5 sets in that form...

There was a huge leveller: Hurricane winds and a huge crowd in favour of Agassi. That was a master piece of composure from Federer, a 23yo then. .

So Hewitt was 21 in 2004? Yah today is 1st April.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Hewitt was 21 in 2004? Yah today is 1st April.

Where did I say or implied that Hewitt was 21 in 2004?



With your weird faculty to read, everyday must be April 1st with you.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:Federer v peak Hewitt: 60 76 60

Hewitt is a great fighter but Federer did not give him the ball. That's what today's players can't quite do.

Federer was on awesome form that USO. And to then think a 34 yr old Agassi took Federer to 5 sets in that form...

There was a huge leveller: Hurricane winds and a huge crowd in favour of Agassi. That was a master piece of composure from Federer, a 23yo then. .

So Federer, who was clearly the No.1 player in the world was affected so much by the crowd not cheering him all the time his standard of play was dropped?

And since when has Fed, really being affected by the elements? - that's something that affects the likes of Hewitt who go for the lines more

Have you got an excuse for everytime Fed has a hard match or a defeat?

Hey! Maybe he's not a God after all (braced for the ensuing abuse at this sacreligous suggestion )

I am not articulate enough to comment or otherwise for the above comment by you Banbrotam. But for all practical purposes, I would regard Federer's status as God like. I am Indian, and many in India give Sachin Tendulkar that privilege, but I do not, despite being a fan. Such class, consistency and pleasure is unseen in Tennis history of my generation, at least. Yet again, I would have no problem in others not feeling the same. But the adulation that he receives all over the world is unsurpassed.

I am not articulate enough to comment or otherwise for the above comment by you Banbrotam. But for all practical purposes, I would regard Federer's status as God like. I am Indian, and many in India give Sachin Tendulkar that privilege, but I do not, despite being a fan. Such class, consistency and pleasure is unseen in Tennis history of my generation, at least. Yet again, I would have no problem in others not feeling the same. But the adulation that he receives all over the world is unsurpassed.

Hewitt did better than I expected today but all this fawning and using him as evidence that this is a weak era or something is baloney. He won a set not the match and the sets he lost he lost comfortably. Odd as when Murray lost his finals against Djokovic and Federer he won more games in his sets but those sets are labelled by many as thrashings.

Now eras are far far too difficult to interpret. When they start, finish, equipment, strength in depth etc etc. However, ask tennis efficienados with no axe to grind with any players and most probably those regarded as amongst the greatest of all-time would probably be Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver. Players in that list plying their trade NOW are Federer and Nadal and Djokovic may well join them in that list in the coming years so that alone tells you how strong tennis is just now. From the mid to late 90's (chiefly)in that list are Sampras and Agassi so fairly well represented. The mid-70's to mid-80's had an era of Borg, Connors and McEnroe. Now the early to mid-2000's is very thinly represented so that tells me that it was not a halcyon age for tennis. Five or ten years down the line and we may see standards have dipped as the top players of today (legends that they are) will have hung up their rackets and at the moment replacing them are who? Just my opinion on eras and suggestions that Hewitt's performance today (a defeat) makes the early 2000's a stronger era than today. If so could people today see Tim Henman reaching a semi-final in a slam, Safin win a slam and Ivanisevic win Wimbledon? I most certainly think not. Conversely, send Fed or Nadal back in time to the early 2000's as they are and they would dominate even more.

Oh! Oh! Certain protectors of all things Fed, are not going to like such a constructively articulate post, CC my friend

I am disappointed nobody has picked up on my whelks versus jellied eels era, but I am glad someone has raised the issue of Sachin Tendulkar. Now if Sachin Tendulkar was a jellied eel what would that make Rafael Nadal? I am not sure whether he would be a whelk or a cockle - or maybe a lungfish

So Tenez, what was the past his peak at 21 question about? Federer?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hewitt did better than I expected today but all this fawning and using him as evidence that this is a weak era or something is baloney. He won a set not the match and the sets he lost he lost comfortably. Odd as when Murray lost his finals against Djokovic and Federer he won more games in his sets but those sets are labelled by many as thrashings.

Now eras are far far too difficult to interpret. When they start, finish, equipment, strength in depth etc etc. However, ask tennis efficienados with no axe to grind with any players and most probably those regarded as amongst the greatest of all-time would probably be Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver. Players in that list plying their trade NOW are Federer and Nadal and Djokovic may well join them in that list in the coming years so that alone tells you how strong tennis is just now. From the mid to late 90's (chiefly)in that list are Sampras and Agassi so fairly well represented. The mid-70's to mid-80's had an era of Borg, Connors and McEnroe. Now the early to mid-2000's is very thinly represented so that tells me that it was not a halcyon age for tennis. Five or ten years down the line and we may see standards have dipped as the top players of today (legends that they are) will have hung up their rackets and at the moment replacing them are who? Just my opinion on eras and suggestions that Hewitt's performance today (a defeat) makes the early 2000's a stronger era than today. If so could people today see Tim Henman reaching a semi-final in a slam, Safin win a slam and Ivanisevic win Wimbledon? I most certainly think not. Conversely, send Fed or Nadal back in time to the early 2000's as they are and they would dominate even more.

As usual You and Banbro have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

None of the Fed supporters have used today's performance by Hewitt to suggest that this era is weak. Quite the contrary. Rather, what we have been arguing against is the mindless dissing of some people of previous eras, wherin the likes of Hewitt have been used as examples of the 'weakness' of those eras. If you had followed the match thread you would have seen the many comments from SA in that regard. Today's performance simply showed how biased and ridiculous those arguements are and you have rightly pointed out that comparing eras in terms of competitiveness is a futile endeavour. The question posed by posters has been 'If an old and injury ravaged Hewitt (who needs steroid injections just to have a practice session) can take a set off Djokovic, serving at 50% no less (Hewitt) then surely all those arguements belittling the competition of the noughties are shown to be to a large extent baseless. As for there being no other great players in Federer's heydey, well that is a double-edged sword. If Federer had not been dominating the competition, no doubt there would have been many multiple slam winners, some perhaps with 6 or 7 slams; they would then likely have been considered all time greats. The fact that Federer is still one of the best players in the world just serves to show far ahead of the competition he was. So instead of decrying his competition as weak, perhaps one should acknowledge that Federer is a unique talent, the likes of which may not be seen again for many a long year; unfortunately for his contemporaries they had to compete against him when he was at his absolute peak.

Banbro, you must have been joking when you stated that Hewitt goes more for the lines than Federer.. please tell me you were.



emancipator

Fed never had the level of competition back in the mid-2000's as he did when Nadal and later Djokovic burst on the scene hence they mustered many slams between them whilst those playing Fed circa 2003-2005 couldn't muster that sort of success. Why? If there were legends there? Also again in the early 2000's Tim reached a slam semi, wildcard Goran Ivansivic in his 30's won Wimbledon and Safin won a slam. Could you see those scenarios happening if they were playing in this day and age? I think not.

I am not belittling players of that age by the way as they were all champions (those that won slams) and nothing will ever take that away from them. People need to understand that. Is Safin or anyone else remotely successful in the mid-2000's regarded now as tennis legends? I'd say definitely not. Players often tagged as legends are those I listed earlier.

Yeah great, let's pretend that an ordinary player who is 7/8 years past his best should be able to push the #1.
Much easier to embrace the media nonsense about a Golden Era, something the British media is especially keen to embrace (Nothing to do with promoting Murray of course!).

My article was in praise of a very, very good player who demonstrated again today that even though he's way past it physically, and out of date technically, he still had it in him to push todays best.

Can you imagine where he'd be in today's game if he were a young man again? (clue: above #4).

bogbrush wrote:Yeah great, let's pretend that an ordinary player who is 7/8 years past his best should be able to push the #1.
Much easier to embrace the media nonsense about a Golden Era, something the British media is especially keen to embrace.

Nothing to do with promoting Murray of course!

You can't take one match and try to use it as a yardstick. Beside Hewitt lost fairly comfortably today. Head-to-head record between the two is Djokovic 5 Hewitt 1. Hewitt's one win coming in 2006 when he was 24 and Djokovic was a green 19-year-old. I am not going to rehash the golden era stuff as I've said eras are too tough to categorise, compartmentalise etc etc. However, name your legends playing at their tennis peak from say 2001 to 2005 and you will struggle to come up with a better duo than Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and no not the press but tennis experts will tell you that. Also it is quite possible Djokovic will become a legend in his own right in the coming years.

Maybe in your World nobody rates Hewitt but out in the real one he's a highly respected champion.

This cr@p is like saying Carl Lewis was a rubbish sprinter because now hey all beat his times. Hewitt hadn't the advantages that e modern guys have, and I think if you put Nadal, Djojovic and Murray in the 90's there'd be highly unlikely to be a Wimbledon semi appearance between them. Does that makes them poor?

Err check back and I did say the 90's can be regarded as a strong time for tennis as there were legends plying their trade then in the form of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. The early to mid-2000's is the time I say tennis was devoid of legends at the peak of their game unless you can name one. And of course Hewitt is a highly respected champion but a legend? No he doesn't fall into that hallowed category in tennis or else why is his name never mentioned in GOAT debates? Also remember in this Australian Open he was a wildcard and exited at the Fourth Round whilst surprise, surprise in the early 2000's a wildcard won a slam in the form of Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. Could you see a wildcard today winning a slam?

Craig, I find it quite amusing that you're so vehement in your arguements against Federer fans yet you seemingly have nothing to say about the mindless rubbish that SA spouts on a daily basis often derailing many threads. I wonder why? Perhaps it has something to do with Murray not having won a slam.. surely such a talented player would have been a multiple slam winner in any other era.. is that the gist of it?

Anyway I'm done with this.. looking forward to some great matches later on.

Don't forget to set the alarm folks..



emancipator

Oh for Gods sake what is this legend garbage? Let's use reasonable language to describe tennis players.

The guy gets wheeled out when he can hardly practise, 10 years beyond his most successful time and takes (or do you suggest he was given?) a set off the guy who walked through 2011. But you don't rate him because there were no "legends" at their peak back in the day. And for good measure you deny Federers domination was in a strong period because no one else was winning Slams.

And on top of that you don't even see the irony in that one.

It is not arguments against anyone in particular just that Federer fans in some way feel like it is a slight on him when it clearly isn't.

Put it another way? Would people try to argue Man. United circa the mid-1980's were superior to that of a decade later? Of course not.

Would boxing fans clain British heavyweight boxing was in a great age in the late 70's to late 80's. No as he lacked top contenders who went on to achieve anything in the sport of note.

The same could be said of tennis players plying their trade in the early to mid-2000's. Champions of their time (the title winners) but how many of them moved on to be serious slam contenders from say 2006/07 onwards? Why if that time was so rich in tennis greats can nobody name me a legend of that time? Go through tennis books, ask tennis experts and ex-pros and the list I posted earlier pretty much covers all of whom the efficienados see as legends and so why is there nobody from the early to mid-2000's? It is something that can't be escaped but can't see why Fed fans are getting in a flap since I have said on here time and time again that Roger Federer is the GOAT.

Enjoy the tennis later folks.

bogbrush wrote:Oh for Gods sake what is this legend garbage? Let's use reasonable language to describe tennis players.

The guy gets wheeled out when he can hardly practise, 10 years beyond his most successful time and takes (or do you suggest he was given?) a set off the guy who walked through 2011. But you don't rate him because there were no "legends" at their peak back in the day. And for good measure you deny Federers domination was in a strong period because no one else was winning Slams.

And on top of that you don't even see the irony in that one.

He won a set bogbrush, not a match. Get it into perspective. Hewitt's one win came in 2006 as I stated earlier when Djokovic was 19. Where have I said I don't rate him. All I am saying is he doesn't match up with the players of today in my opinion and that may cut no ice with people here but I think you'll find tennis experts will tell you the same. A champion of his age certainly but one of the all-time greats I say not as that is somewhat of an exclusive club.

Put Hewitt and Murray in the same time period and Lleyton strolls it. I accept Djokovic is better, but it's not the type of gulf you want to believe. The guy was the business.

How many sets will Nadal/Djokovic/Murray be taking off the top guy when theyre 32 and if they've been through the injuries he has? They'll be lucky to still make a game of it.

And they are all top players.

I can't for the life of me understand how an isolated game proves anything. I was watching the exhibitions between Sampras and Fed a few years back which Fed edged (2-1, I think) and was surprised at Sampras' performance against a peak, seemingly invincible Fed. A player ranked in the 100's could cause great problems for the top 4 when they hit the zone. It's an indication of nothing significant.

Hewitt was facing the best player in the world on the biggest stage infront of his home crowd and threw the kitchen sink (and bathtub) at Nole. It says nothing about their respective talents.

The bottom line is however people would love to blur the margins for comparison across eras taking into cognisance ever changing conditions, Djokovic is a vastly superior player (and talent) than Hewitt. I don't expect the Fed apologists - lost in their anti-weak-era-theory agenda - to agree, though.

Oh FFS, now we have exhibitions wheeled in!

Dont you value your credibility more than that?

bogbush for a second then I was wondering who this poster FFS was and then the penny dropped!

Interesting though that Lleyton generates such mixed views about his tennis. Bit like marmite I suppose.

This is getting ridiculous. As usual as always happens when anyone dares to give some kind of alternative opinion of the 2002 to 2006 spell (i.e. before Nadal got competitive at Slams other than the French) they are labelled as "not rating" those players

Nowhere have I or CC "knocked" his achhievements, but we wonder if he'd have so much respect if he hadn't caused Federer so many problems in their early meetings

Apparantly to continually be a cynic about the talents of Murray and Djokovic is seem as fair game - rarely do they get praise for having skills to take your breath away, by some

And so I continue to be cynical about those players who get so much praise from the Fed fans for having a losing record against the great man or say 18-8 or 22-2 or whatever the relevant evidence of being outclassed is, but strangely have a rather dismissive view of those that have

Personally, I smiled when I saw this article

banbrotam wrote:

So Federer, who was clearly the No.1 player in the world was affected so much by the crowd not cheering him all the time his standard of play was dropped?

And since when has Fed, really being affected by the elements? - that's something that affects the likes of Hewitt who go for the lines more

Have you got an excuse for everytime Fed has a hard match or a defeat?

Hey! Maybe he's not a God after all (braced for the ensuing abuse at this sacreligous suggestion )

DId Sportlover sent you to have a go? You never miss a chance to expose yourself. I am impressed. But I do appreciate your reluctance in giving up and face another lesson..in vain though I feel. Do you remember that match v Agassi? Do you know what you are talking about? It was hurricane conds and unplayable as the match was stopped twice...including for Agassi who is known to be good under tough conditions. DO you know what it is to play v the largerst crowd in the US center court? The great Borg failed there a few times despite his reknown mental strength.

Can you project yourself at 23, playing under hurricane winds with the largest crowd cheering probably the most popular player ever in the US? And you can't appreciate that stoicism in a young player? Sad really. It was a master piece of self control and one of the greatest moment of tennis.

Put Hewitt and Murray in the same time period and Lleyton strolls it.

Murray is a vastly more talented player than Hewitt. Hewitt is actually the kind of player I see Murray rolling over. He doesn't have the weapons to trouble Murray.

And can people quit acting like we're comparing 70's tennis with this era considering all the talk about technology and nutrition and conditions and what not. Hewitt straddles the early noughties and this current generation and is younger than quite a few top players. He's fair game when making any comparisons with current players.