I think Lleyton Hewitt is a superstar

First topic message reminder :

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.

Why is this still going on? 2003-2007 Tennis weak era. Now next topic.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why is still going on? 2003-2007 Tennis weak era. Now next topic.

CC thinks it's 2000 - 2005. You need to educate him in an unbiased way.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Lol alright then Mthierry, Murray's highest level equals Federer's.

That's an outrageous claim...etc.

It best describes perfectly the kind of posters we are dealing with here.

No point to keep arguing.

"Of course mthierry, of course!"

Too bad because 2006 was the weakest year in the history of tennis.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Too bad because 2006 was the weakest year in the history of tennis.

Worse than 1942?

Some people make a strange claim that Nalbandian has played at a higher level than Murray and can't justify it and then go ahead to make strawman jokes totally unrelated this claim.

I still want to know when and how Nalbandian has played at a higher level than Murray.

Hewitt at his peak was simply a slightly better version of David Ferrer. It's that simple really.

WTF 2005 comes back from 2 sets to love down to beat Fed during his best years, albeit injured at this point. The level they both played is higher than anything Murray has produced.

I started read this thread and after page 2 I got bored.

To the topic of the thread.

Hewitt is a mental giant. He is up there with McEnroe, Connors and Borg being one of the mentally toughest players out there. I remember his victory over Del Potro at Wimbledon 2009. He has that knack even in the sunset of his career producing some big results. Yes his career has been hampered by injuries. Superb at the net and his running BH was one of the best I have seen. Not many players can win matches on the back of mental strength like he has and be able to grind a result out of absolute nothing.

Well played legend, a post in the original, intended spirit of the thread.

mthierry wrote:Hewitt at his peak was simply a slightly better version of David Ferrer. It's that simple really.

and ferrer is world number five in the 'Golden era'.

At the ripe old age of 29 no less

Tenez what are you gibbering on about? Can you please point to a post in this thread where I said Murray was better than Hewitt. Do you have to fabricate stuff now?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:WTF 2005 comes back from 2 sets to love down to beat Fed during his best years, albeit injured at this point. The level they both played is higher than anything Murray has produced.

I watched that game and Federer was no where near top form. If Federer played like that against an in-form Murray, he'd get a straight sets thrashing which has happened a couple of times against Andy. It's laughable to claim Nalbandian has played at a higher level than Murray. Certainly a gifted player but tone down the hyperbole.

emancipator wrote:At the ripe old age of 29 no less

Ferrer is a late bloomer who at his age remains one of the best movers on a tour with ever rising standards of athleticism so your point proves diddly squat.

He's playing as well as a Hewitt or a Ferrero in their early twenties. Maybe with more fortunate timing like those players, he may even have a French or Australian Open.

Lol I can't be asked with this anymore. If I continue I fear you're going to make me not want Murray to win his first slam. Yeah Murray is better than all who came from that period and the world is so unfair to him. Those players from that non era wouldn't have a clue how to deal with his serve and forehand.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Safin played good enough tennis to beat Federer at his best. Who cares if he didn't do it often as long as there was someone else to then its still tough. The closest I've seen Murray come to anything memorable was his USO semi in 2008.

Did you miss his even better demolition of Rafa, two years ago - which resulted in the great Spaniard defaulting

You have a point about Safin - his AO defeat of peak Fed was very impressive. However, part of being the best is consistency

CaledonianCraig wrote:Tenez what are you gibbering on about? Can you please point to a post in this thread where I said Murray was better than Hewitt. Do you have to fabricate stuff now?

That's enough about the 'physicality' debate and Tennis ended in 2006

The point wasn't about Safin being the best, it was just about the so called absence of high quality tennis.

I indeed saw that match, I guess I'd have to watch that and the USO again to verify which I thought was better. I guess he looked invincible in both. I just remember the USO more as I believed that's how he would play from then on and that he'd got every player at that point figured out.

Yeah but I don't think anyone's arguing that we didn't get some high quality Tennis. For instance Safin remains one of my favourites of the last 10 year

However, we didn't get it consistently - Safin let us down enourmously on that count as he should have been a 'serial' Slam semi-finalist at worst

Hence we didn't get the high quality, we now get all the time, because we have five players who nearly always do what their seeding suggests

It stand to reason, that if Safin ranked high in 2002 is getting knocked out in the second round, of the US Open, by Tommy Robredo - quality wise that event isn't going to be as good

You have a good point and one I hadn't thought of - it was more the consistency of the likes of Safin that was the issue as this let players like Roddick dominate (to a degree)

Roddick had a good part of the season which got him to number 1 but I hardly think he dominated from then. Just because Safin wasn't in those semis to provide the good tennis doesn't mean it couldn't come from someone else. I mean take the situation now, if we replaced one of the quarter finalists with say Dolgopolov then would that make it any worse? Chances are he'd still be able to provide high quality tennis for that stage in the same way others were able to do in the absence of Safin.

How did a Hewitt appreciation thread turn into a comparison with other players thread?

Appreciate the man and his supporters.

Hmmm. Well, my contribution to this appreciation thread is that I think Lleyton was merely fortunate to get a set off Novak who took his foot off the accelerator against a player he was crushing. Happens all the time, no big deal. Some credit for taking his chance but reality was soon restored. Let's not make too much of this. Incidentally I think it's a thread that has as much to do with old debates than lauding a set won by a yesterday's man when the match was lost.

I'm not being nasty to LH. He was great for a few years.

legendkillar wrote:How did a Hewitt appreciation thread turn into a comparison with other players thread?

Appreciate the man and his supporters.

lk the reality is that some on this forum love taking cheap shots at former champions simply because they somehow feel aggrieved Andy was born in the wrong era and therefore is hard done by at not winning any slams yet.

Others in the past have even tried to convince themselves that a certain Tim H would have won Wimbledon if it hadn't been for Pete Sampras so it seems to be an on-going reluctance to admit some players have what it takes to win slams whilst other British heroes are less fortunate.

To be fair Andy still has a chance still to set the records straight and earn the right to be with the pantheon of one or two slam winners (unless Ivan makes him a multiple slam champ but let's take one step at a time here), So it's in little doubt that the ability is there but until he converts this promise into slams I'll stick with Lleyton who will feature higher up in the order of great tennis players as things currently stand.

Every thread is ending in an argument - personally I stand by my assertion that Murray is a slightly better player but Hewitts mental strength is far better allowing him to maximise his potential more. Obviously he will be the more remembered one as things stand given the GS titles but that could change. None of that is relevant to the original thread though.

Back to the original thread - it was great to see Hewitt doing well, I always had a soft spot for him. I can see him being a successful coach or commentator in future years but hopefully he will play for a while yet.

My sentiments exactly newballs, something seems to be up with the Murray fans. I don't share the feelings but I think I understand them as I want Murray to win a slam as well.

Anyhow does anyone know where to now for Hewitt. I guess he'll be having a break after this tournament to recover a bit? He said he'd surpassed his expectations to make it that far. Maybe he could still win a masters series, that will be easier on the body in addition to perhaps some good slam runs.

newballs wrote:

legendkillar wrote:How did a Hewitt appreciation thread turn into a comparison with other players thread?

Appreciate the man and his supporters.

lk the reality is that some on this forum love taking cheap shots at former champions simply because they somehow feel aggrieved Andy was born in the wrong era and therefore is hard done by at not winning any slams yet.

Others in the past have even tried to convince themselves that a certain Tim H would have won Wimbledon if it hadn't been for Pete Sampras so it seems to be an on-going reluctance to admit some players have what it takes to win slams whilst other British heroes are less fortunate.

To be fair Andy still has a chance still to set the records straight and earn the right to be with the pantheon of one or two slam winners (unless Ivan makes him a multiple slam champ but let's take one step at a time here), So it's in little doubt that the ability is there but until he converts this promise into slams I'll stick with Lleyton who will feature higher up in the order of great tennis players as things currently stand.

Mind you Lleyton beat our Tim back in 2002. And back then, Lleyton was something different and a bit special. Tim yes time and time again came up short against Pete, but Time had a golden chance back in 2001 and didn't take it.

In terms of comparison to Murray. I am sure Andy would trade in all the titles in the world to have a bit of the Lleyton mentality in a Slam final.

lk agreed. I think perhaps Lleyton's short dominance in the early 2000's is overlooked due to Federer's longer dominace thereafter.

Who know without Lleyton we mad not have had Roger playing at the level he has and so on with Rafa and Novak?

Of course, not wishing to leave out Andy, if he were to rise to the challenge of usurping Novak that would be something.

This thread was derailed the way it was cos it was a transparent attempt by the OP to score a point in the "weak era" debate based on a very weak premise. You'd be naive to think he was merely expressing his admiration for Hewitt without an ulterior motive.

amritia3ee wrote:Official Verdict:
Hewitt= Good player, quite talented, and great mental strength.
Should be respected by all.

As for the Murray argument, Murray was arguably more talented, but is unfortunate to be born in this era of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic.

Do you have a link to that Official Verdict (I assume it's official, not just your opinion?)

Ah, the great Julius. Only if you agree with it will it become the true official verdict.

No seriously, do you not agree with me on this one Julius?

mthierry wrote:This thread was derailed the way it was cos it was a transparent attempt by the OP to score a point in the "weak era" debate based on a very weak premise. You'd be naive to think he was merely expressing his admiration for Hewitt without an ulterior motive.

Idiotic and rude post.

It seems nobody can express any opinion now unless it promotes your heroes.

Some of us know something about his sport and have perspective denied to fanboys. Stick your arguments up and I'll tackles them on their (limited) merits, and I'll try not to attempt to read your mind.

amritia3ee wrote:Ah, the great Julius. Only if you agree with it will it become the true official verdict.

Why not just post your arguments rather than posing like we're supposed to take you seriously?

amritia3ee wrote:No seriously, do you not agree with me on this one Julius?

I've already posted my thoughts. but they're only unofficial, so aren't as important.

No Julius, they are official too.
Which page is it on?

mthierry wrote:

emancipator wrote:At the ripe old age of 29 no less

Ferrer is a late bloomer who at his age remains one of the best movers on a tour with ever rising standards of athleticism so your point proves diddly squat.

He's playing as well as a Hewitt or a Ferrero in their early twenties. Maybe with more fortunate timing like those players, he may even have a French or Australian Open.

Ferrer has been a consistent top ten player for about 6-7 years now; there is nothing late about his blooming.

You'd be wise not to take that tone with me

Lest I reduce you to a babbling mess; not that you are from that anyway.

You forget oh ignominous one.. I am the emancipator

I have fought for many eons with the dark and cavernous powers of BOO (oh BOOOOOOOOOOO, come back Oh BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO), mud and his sister slush therefore, you, oh child M, son of Thierry, are less than a mere creepy crawly that can be crushed into oblivion should I, emancipator, choose to do so. Ye have been warned; let it not go unheeded.

Oh, and by the way, can anyone explain to me how the 'Golden era' (cough, cough) can have such stalwarts as Fish (yes, that's right folks, the mighty Fish) and Al-Mugro (I expect half of the contingent here wouldn't recognise him if he sat down with them for dinner) as part of the top 10?

Ultimately, Hewitt is a proven champion, who has the game, the mentality and the balls to grasp his opportunities with both hands. Unfortunately, Murray does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as him, yet. It's funny how Hewitt gets no credit for beating an older Sampras, yet Djokovic is hailed as a potential all time great on the back of beating an older Federer en route to his slams.



emancipator - intergalactic professor of earthly sports, and guardian of the dark secrets and arts of BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

He means it too. I've seen him do it.

bogbrush wrote:

mthierry wrote:This thread was derailed the way it was cos it was a transparent attempt by the OP to score a point in the "weak era" debate based on a very weak premise. You'd be naive to think he was merely expressing his admiration for Hewitt without an ulterior motive.

Idiotic and rude post.

It seems nobody can express any opinion now unless it promotes your heroes.

Some of us know something about his sport and have perspective denied to fanboys. Stick your arguments up and I'll tackles them on their (limited) merits, and I'll try not to attempt to read your mind.

There was nothing rude about my post: the only thing rude was your boorish response. Was merely pointing out what was patently clear to anyone remotely conversant with your history since BBC606. And quit insulting people's intelligence with the laughable claims of your apparently unique, neutral perspective on tennis. Yeah, right.

You certainly fit into the profile of whatever you define as a "fanboy". And I stand by my original post about your motive for this thread.

As for your belated response, emancipator. Almagro and his ilk are no different from the likes of Gaudio. Let's not even get into some of the slam winners in the early noughties. Or the hilarious no. 1's ruling the tour at the time. The ATP then plumbed to the depth the WTA is experiencing right now.

Maybe we should just quit going in circles and concede none of us will convince the other.

mthierry wrote:Maybe we should just quit going in circles and concede none of us will convince the other.

If everyone did that, no-one would ever post anything

mthierry wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

mthierry wrote:This thread was derailed the way it was cos it was a transparent attempt by the OP to score a point in the "weak era" debate based on a very weak premise. You'd be naive to think he was merely expressing his admiration for Hewitt without an ulterior motive.

Idiotic and rude post.

It seems nobody can express any opinion now unless it promotes your heroes.

Some of us know something about his sport and have perspective denied to fanboys. Stick your arguments up and I'll tackles them on their (limited) merits, and I'll try not to attempt to read your mind.

There was nothing rude about my post: the only thing rude was your boorish response. Was merely pointing out what was patently clear to anyone remotely conversant with your history since BBC606. And quit insulting people's intelligence with the laughable claims of your apparently unique, neutral perspective on tennis. Yeah, right.

You certainly fit into the profile of whatever you define as a "fanboy". And I stand by my original post about your motive for this thread.

Some of us know tennis before the current crop, and think a bit more broadly. Tough concept I know but think about it. Perspective is a wonderful thing, it helps you realise that not everything is about your special hero.

I think Lleyton proved again he'd be a contender in any era, and certainly so in this one.

bogbrush it is amazing how much this thread has morphed into criticising one player against another.

The facts though do speak for themselves. Lleyton may not quite be of superstar status outside of Australia but he was one hell of a player who is still enjoying the twilight of his career.

Seems kind of ironic that he's recently battled past Roddick whose career promised much but never quite reached Lleyton's levels (Unsure if I'll get away with that one given the amount of abuse that descended on anyone who dared to say similar things with regard to that other Andy so far in his own career).

I think likening him at his best to either Connors or Agassi is praise enough and if this proves to be his last Aussie Open he 'll be sorely missed.

I know. Trouble is that some fans of one player (a player I personally like and wish the best for) are wrapped upon the proble, that unless they boost this period and denigrate previous ones, that player will suffer in their eyes as not being so good.

Hence, you write an article praising almost any player in the previous 10 years and watch them flock.

I think peak Hewitt (2002 Wimbledon and 2003 Davis Cup beating Federer 5-7 2-6 7-6 (7-4) 7-5 6-1 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/21/1064082858641.html?from=storyrhs) probably beats peak Murray, but my guess is that if you took Hewitt's best 5 or 6 years, and Murray's best, Murray would be the better player.
Hewitt may be 2-0 in slams and WTFs, but so might Murray be if he had played in the weaker 2000-2003 period.
Anyway, that's my gut feeling.
Also, I rate Murray as an extremely talented player and give him the talent edge over Hewitt. Mental is his issue which might have been less of an issue for Hewitt..