Bogbrush's Hewitt=Djokovic Boondoggle

by socal1976 Sat 23 Jul 2011, 8:15 pm

I have huge respect for Nole, just as I had huge respect for his predecessor, Lleyton Hewitt.

Their style of play isn't my favourite but they both played it to a very high level. Quoted from the book of Bogbrush

This has to be one of the most amusing posts by a man who claims he is not being dismissive of Djokovic. Firstly due respect to Hewitt he is a great champion has given a lot to the game. Hewitt and Djokovic are not stylistically, athletically, or technically similar in very many ways. And certainly not when you look at accomplishments in the game.

Djokovic is 24 and in the best run of his career:

-3 grandslam titles
-5 grandslam finals
-9 Master's series
-1 master's year end cup

Hewitt 30 and at the very end of his career:

-2 grandslam titles
-3 finals
-2 master's titles
-2 year end master's cup

Hewitt's best season: 1 grandslam title, 1 master's title, 1 master's cup, 6 titles

Djokovic's best season (still alot to go): 2 grandslams, 4 masters, 8 titles

Hewitt does have a lengthy run at number #1 in an era replete with shorterm and weak number 1s, unlike the era Djokovic plays in. In fact you take Hewitt's best year it probably would get him the #3 ranking in the much stronger Fedal and post-fedal era. In fact, Novak had the same exact results in 2008 as hewitt did in 2002 when he finished world #1. Novak had 5 titles, 1 masters, the master's cup, and a grandslam and all he was able to manage in his era was the #3 ranking behind Rafa and Roger.

Technically speaking is there a single aspect other than volleying that anyone in their right mind would say hewitt, even in his prime, is better than Djokovic at.

And Stylistically their games are different. Novak goes up the line more, hits the ball heavier, has a more western forehand, hits more winners.

by noleisthebest Sat 23 Jul 2011, 10:50 pm

Socal,

Bogbrush is only joking!

Everyone knows Hewitt was a classy counter-puncher so he can only resemble Murray's game.....

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 23 Jul 2011, 11:26 pm

Hewitt doesn't really resemble Murray, or even Djokovic that much. He wasn't really a counter-puncher either, not in the modern sense. He was a baseliner who loved a target. Not dissimilar to Connors in a way. In his prime he could drill winners past anyone at the net. A counter-puncher to S & V, let's say.
Then the game changed, and there wasn't anyone at the net anymore. His strongest point was negated by the changes in surface, technology etc.

by bogbrush Sat 23 Jul 2011, 11:42 pm

Oh dear, I've upset someone. Whistle

I suppose it would be acceptable to compare Djokovic to the Dalai Lama, or perhaps Gandhi rather than the man whose tennis game he obviously grew up admiring and imitating.
Yes, he is taller than Hewitt; I'll give you that. Also he has shorter hair and takes more MTOs, but otherwise I'm looking at a great return, a d-h backhand and immense retrieval skills that looks plucked from the 2001 #1.

Obviously advances in racquet technology give Nole more bite on those baseline stretches, but I'm sure anyone will concede that a young, fully fit Hewitt would have had the same benefit.

It's a great comparison; both #1s coming soon after a true great, both rightfully atop the game. Although I don't remember Lleyton having annoying relatives. He didn't need them, he was annoying enough himself.

by noleisthebest Sat 23 Jul 2011, 11:43 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hewitt doesn't really resemble Murray, or even Djokovic that much. He wasn't really a counter-puncher either, not in the modern sense. He was a baseliner who loved a target. Not dissimilar to Connors in a way. In his prime he could drill winners past anyone at the net. A counter-puncher to S & V, let's say.
Then the game changed, and there wasn't anyone at the net anymore. His strongest point was negated by the changes in surface, technology etc.

Well I did say a CLASSy counter-puncher with all-court ability, but no weapon for anything attacking in terms of style. I loved his spirit...

by socal1976 Sat 23 Jul 2011, 11:58 pm

Bogbrush hewitt in no way had a backhand even remotely as good as Djokovic certainly wasn't anywhere near the quality. Like I said outside of volleying, even in his peak he doesn't have any shots that are as good as Novak's. Funny how you bring up Hewitt, who is even more proof of the transitional era he was champion in. 2002 Hewitt is number 1 with basically the same results that land Djokovic the #3 ranking in 2008. Their styles are different the only thing that is similar as that they are both fast and play a baseline game. Totally different style. Hewitt was a flat ball hitter who takes the ball early, Djokovic takes way bigger swings and puts way more spin on the ball. Hewitt was more comfortable at net, and frankly Novak's weakest side as a far as groundstrokes is better than hewitt's best. Only Bogbrush would confuse a guy with 2 master's titles with a guy who has 9 master's titles. Only off by 450 percent than they must be the same.

by Chazfazzer Sun 24 Jul 2011, 12:08 am

The top ten player Hewitt most resembles is probably David Ferrer, except with a better serve. I'm tempted to say that Hewitt in his prime was probably a better player than Ferrer, although maybe I'm underestimating how solid Ferrer's groundshots are.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 12:27 am

That is the thing that has me puzzled, Chazz, other than the fact that they are both fast and play a baseline game like 90 percent of the rest of the pros I don't see the similarity. The forehands are radically different as hewitt off both wings is much more compact and flatter of a hitter. Both are good returners that is a similarity. But hewitt's big shot was his forehand, and even his forehand is not nearly the forehand Djokovic's is. It is another part of Bogbrush's agenda to diminish every champion who comes after Federer. He did it with Nadal, and now he and his minions are doing it with Djokovic. We have this phenomenon in the USA with basketball. Michael jordan is the Roger Federer of that sport and every star player after Jordan invariably has to deal with a legion of fans and media who invariably feel that they most drone on about everybody's inferiority to Jordan in every respect. Roger fan's are unfortunately, at least some not all, are taking up the bad habits of front runners everywhere who must greedily prove that their player is the best thing ever.

by Chazfazzer Sun 24 Jul 2011, 12:39 am

I don't know...I think Bogbrush is just trying to keep some perspective for those hailing Djokovic as the best thing since chocolate-flavoured sliced bread. Djokovic is clearly the best player in the world right now, but I don't see calling him this era's Lleyton Hewitt as that much of an insult. Hewitt at his best, remember, was still a very good player; I remember hating him as a youngster for his various demolitions of Tim Henman in crucial matches. I think by calling him this era's Lleyton Hewitt he means that he is an upgrade of Hewitt, which I see as an apt comparison. Djokovic is a very solid baseline player, whose standard play is to hit moderately aggressive shots to force the mistake or get the short ball which he can then put away. Hewitt plays (or rather, played, as his career seems to be almost at an end) in a similar manner, but as you say socal, I think Djokovic is superior in virtually all departments, apart from maybe the serve, where they are about even. Hewitt's movement at his best was exceptional, but I think Djokovic's is even better as always seems to be able to produce a great shot even at full stretch.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 12:47 am

Chazz the general style and similarities are simiralities that 90 percent of the tour possess. Bogbrush is very crafty he knows what he is doing when throws out hewitt. Not that hewitt isn't a great player or a great competitor. But in the pantheon of players who have attained the number one ranking his bottom tier, by not directly insulting Djokovic but equating him to a #1 who is generally seen as lacking weapons and being in the lower tier of world #1's he is furthering his agenda to elevate Roger and bring everyone else down. If this comment was the only instance, I would tend to agree with you. There are other instances of Bogbrush acting as Mr. Rain on your parade.

by time please Sun 24 Jul 2011, 5:38 am

socal - you need to re/discover a sense of perspective! Nole is the best player in the world at the moment and I think everyone here recognises him as such. He looked, for a long time, the almost equal of two of the greatest champions, and is currently playing above their level. It is YOU that wants to continually harangue people into hailing him as something more than that by casting doubts and aspersions on other players and times.

Who knows Nole may turn out to be goat (if you care so much about that kind of thing - which is pretty subjective after all) but it is a little premature to start trying to pin his place down in history.

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:28 am

Exactly, and it's great to see some posters who understand and have perspective.

Hewitt was a great player, something that is unknown to many people who only recently started watching tennis. He has been devastated by injury and his level dropped far faster than age would have caused. At his peak he had exactly the same attributes as Nole:

* almost impossible to get past, he'd run left and right like crazy and retrieve.
* brilliant returning, neutralising the biggest servers.
* excellent serve

Their differences were that Djokovic has a much better forehand, whereas Hewitt had stronger willpower and a better volley, but their gameplan was essentially the same. What socal fails to recognise that he did all this without the benefot of modern strings; Lleyton would have been a total beast with the equipment Nole has.

I don't know why socal is so upset about this, Hewitt was a clear and outstanding #1 - do not subscribe to this transitional #1, lower tier, nonsense that socal peddles. That is just more of this idiotic "Golden Era" pap. He was the real thing. He was miles ahead of Federer on the h2h for a time and inflicted a brutal double-breadstick defeat on Sampras at the USO final of 2001.

He also took Pete to a final set tb at Queens as an 18 year old!! How many 18 year olds do we have around now doing that kind of big thing??!!!!! I don't recall Nole doing anything like that at the same age.

Top man, and a flattering comparison for Djokovic.

by time please Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:53 am

I think socal said somewhere that s/he had more or less stopped watching tennis during the era of Sampras, bored by big serve and volley, and that s/he had to credit Federer for at least bringing her/him back to tennis.

That rather says it all about perspective imo. Anyone who watched Hewitt remembers how invincible he looked for a time and how he could neutralise a serve like Sampras had and how, before Fed got his head on, he neutralised him all the time too. That gap in socal's tennis viewing means that perhaps s/he would be wiser not to pontificate on 'eras' s/he didn't watch!

It is hard to know why Hewitt faded quite so quickly, but his battling style often means a much shorter shelf life - though he is still more than capable of a great, rousing crowd pleasing match.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:08 am

Interesting but I reject your points wholeheartedly. I said I almost stopped watching tennis, I didn't watch that era as religiously as I watched tennis before or after, but i still kept up well enough. Look the proof is in the pudding, perspective or whatever you call it. One player has won 9 master's titles the other 2. One player has been to more grandslam finals and has one more grandslam title on top of all those other accomplishment. More importantly they are about as much alike as lets David Ferrer and Rafa nadal. Or Giles Simon and Davydenko, they are fast and play off the baseline. I don't care if Novak quits playing tomorrow he has already accomplished enough for me. But when someone makes an absolutely ridiculous statement that he knows is a way of being dismissive then I will stand up and bring facts to prove that his statement is erroneous. None of which have has even attempted to rebut.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:15 am

Lets look at them in terms of their shot by shot analysis:

backhand: no doubt Novak is better

forehand: Novak's second best ground stroke and hewitt's big weapon at the time he was dominating, still would take Novak's forehand. Which by the way is a completely different swing with a completely different grip.

Serve: up until this year would have given to hewitt, but at worst with how well novak has been serving you call it even

movement: I feel generous lets call it even

volleys: hewitt

return of serve: lleyton is good novak is better.

So establishing equivalency between two players one of whom is at the end of his career and who still has not accomplished as much as his six year's junior, and who has almost no shots that match up with Djokovic is an insult and slight and completely unsupported by the facts and that is how I see it.

by noleisthebest Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:17 am

socal1976 wrote:Lets look at them in terms of their shot by shot analysis:

backhand: no doubt Novak is better

forehand: Novak's second best ground stroke and hewitt's big weapon at the time he was dominating, still would take Novak's forehand. Which by the way is a completely different swing with a completely different grip.

Serve: up until this year would have given to hewitt, but at worst with how well novak has been serving you call it even

movement: I feel generous lets call it even

volleys: hewitt

Socal, you're underselling NOle SERIOUSLY, so let's be properly generous: Nole IS the best....the REST can suffer...

return of serve: lleyton is good novak is better.

So establishing equivalency between two players one of whom is at the end of his career and who still has not accomplished as much as his six year's junior, and who has almost no shots that match up with Djokovic is an insult and slight and completely unsupported by the facts and that is how I see it.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:44 am

Nitb, there isn't even an argument frankly. As I looked past on Hewitt's career on the ATP website I noticed how little he accomplished to be a two time world year end #1. Funny how they argue with me relentlessly about how strong the early 2000s and late 90s was. Hewitt's best year mirrors Novak's in grandslams won, master's won, and they both won the year end master's. In 2002 that was good enough for hewitt to finish #1. Novak with same amount of tournament wins, master's, the year ender, and a grandslam identical to hewitt's finished as the #3 ranked player in the world in 2008. Yes I take this comparison as an insulting and dismissive gesture, how do you take it Nitb?

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:52 am

I really think socal is deliberately overlooking the advances in string technology that facilitate much of Noles game.

I also think that having conceded you lost interest in the game you are on weak ground presenting a forensic analysis of their games.

Hewitt came to the fore when Sampras was winning Slams and Federer was coming through. And in that environment he won Slams and was the solid #1. That is a real, great achievement and it's terrible to see proclaimed students of the game dismiss his achievements. It's very interesting that you see the competition at the top of the game as a sign of the periods weakness; funny, it could be just as easily presented as evidence of depth, something the game sadly lacks now (with someone like David Ferrer, 29, now close to his careers highest ranking).

It's also clear that as the game evolves, the successor to a players mantle doesn't play exactly like them. However, if we examine their core strengths they are clearly brothers in style.

by legendkillar Sun 24 Jul 2011, 11:10 am

Hewitt in his pomp was almost unplayable. If we are to do an overall analysis, lets look at all the elements of the players games and not cherry pick those that favour a particular player.

Serve - Hewitt's much more accurate than Novak's, even if he has improved it. Hewitt had a consistent serve for 6 years. Novak has had 1 good year with his serve. Hewitt

Groundstrokes - I would make this even. Both players can more than hold their own in rallies and both have the consistency to his winners once they have begun dominating rallies. Draw

Forehand - No doubt that Hewitt had a good FH, but not one that was dominant in matches. He used it more to push his opponent off court and out of position. Djokovic has a big big FH and has a massive FH up the line and has much more varied FH than Hewitt. Djokovic

Backhand - Both players utilise the DHBH. Both players are able to hit off the wings and up the line. Again I make this very even and too close to call. Draw

Dropshot - Djokovic has the best DS in the business. It was never a preferred tactic of Hewitt. Djokovic

Speed - No doubt Djokovic is quicker on the court. Reaches more balls than an in-pomp Hewitt. Djokovic

Movement - For me it is a close call. Hewitt edges it because he has the better balance and tidier footwork. Djokovic does chase every ball down and sometimes is off balance. Hewitt

Mental - Djokovic certainly has a new mental toughness since his Davis Cup victory with Serbia, but for me Hewitt is mentally one of the toughest players ever. Hewitt

So it is 3-3.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 24 Jul 2011, 12:59 pm

The two players, considered in their prime, are not so dissimilar. The point is: Hewitt, after two great years just inexplicably faded away, showing as a consequence lack of mental resilience to stay at the very top. On the contrary Djokovic seems equipped for a longer and more successful run. Djokovic’s game has overall a more aggressive demeanour than Hewitt’s, which enable him to boss the rallies and find patiently the weaker spot in his opponents defence. Hewitt, on the contrary, needed to finish off most of the rallies at the net, a very risky tactic to implement in modern tennis.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 1:51 pm

[quote="Jeremy_Kyle" Hewitt, after two great years just inexplicably faded away, showing as a consequence lack of mental resilience to stay at the very top. [/quote]

I don't think it was a lack of mental resilience. More a combination of illness/injury and the fact that his great ability against S&V, which was more predominant at the time, was less effective as S&V died out.

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 2:49 pm

Agree Julius, his career really was terribly blighted by injury.

Great summary from lk.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 5:55 pm

Its funny, being forced to look back at Hewitt's dominant years I came to the realization of how strong my logic is about the weaker period of the late 90s and early 2000s. Hewitt finished #1 in 2002 with 61 match wins 5 titles, one master's series, the year end master's and a grandslam. That year Hewitt finished as wordl #1. In 2008 Novak Djokokovic wins 4 titles, a masters, the master's cup, a grandslam and reaches the semi of 3 of the 4 grandslams. He wins 63 matches that year and finishes a distant 3rd in the points race.

Legend, can't disagree with you more in the analysis. No way Hewitt's backhand is better than Djoko's in his prime or ever. I watched hewitt when he was dominating I just didn't watch as much as I do now. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two backhands, Hewitt's is solid but very pedestrian. It would never break down but he would rarely hit a winner with it. Hewitt's big weapon when he was on tour was his return of serve and forehand, not his backhand. Even at his most dominant I don't think anyone would have rated his backhand as the best in the game or even nearly the best in the game.

So I would disagree with your analysis, Novak has both a better forehand and backhand. Again I am not saying hewitt isn't a great player, but what I am saying is that clearly Djokovic is quantifiably and significantly better and that other than that both players are fast baseliners there really aren't many similarities in their game. You know how I know Djokovic is better unlike all of you guys I actually looked at the facts and use them in my argument. Like the fact that Hewitt this dominant great won exactly 2 master's series in his 12 year career. And that Djokovic won 2 master's series in the month of May this year. And even before this year Novak had two and half times the Master's shields Hewitt had now well his lead is monstrous. 9 master's to 2 masters. 3 grandslams to 2 grandslams and one player is at the half point of their career and the other is finished with his. Proof is in the facts which none of the hewitt proponents have produced to show equivalency.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:16 pm

In 1996 Chang won 1 masters and 2 other titles and finished as World No 2. Strong year?

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:22 pm

"You know how I know Djokovic is better unlike all of you guys I actually looked at the facts and use them in my argument. Like the fact that Hewitt this dominant great won exactly 2 master's series in his 12 year career."

No, it was because the game had greater depth then.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:23 pm

That year probably gets him the #2 ranking in 2001 or 2002 as well, so were does that leave us. Julius it is not just 1996 that you are fixating on. The early to mid 90s as whole blows away in terms of depth of talent at the top. Basically, 1996 i picked as sort of the end of the period. Just look at the names of the #1 players prior 1996 and those that came between 1996 and 2004, the evidence is self explanatory.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:31 pm

bogbrush wrote:"You know how I know Djokovic is better unlike all of you guys I actually looked at the facts and use them in my argument. Like the fact that Hewitt this dominant great won exactly 2 master's series in his 12 year career."

No, it was because the game had greater depth then.

OH, I GET IT, NOW BOGBRUSH IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT TODAY IS A WEAKER ERA THAN THE EARLY 2000S. Wait attack him everybody, he has the audacity to claim that the tennis now is weaker. I wonder why the federophiles are so quick to claim that the game was deeper in the early 2000s than it is now? But if I argue the opposite it is seen as controversial and so offensive. So let me get this straight it is ok to make an argument that Fed's era is stronger, but it is a crime against man and nature to state that the competition level was weaker in the early fed years than it is now. ATTACK FED FANS ATTACK, BOGBRUSH IS MAKING A WEAK ERA ARGUMENT, just like I am except his benefits Fed's legacy so I guess that is ok and fits within the groupthink agenda.

Still waiting for those facts that show how there is an equivalency between Hewitt and Novak, can't see any, not IN ONE OF YOUR POSTS. 9 masters to 2, 3 grandslams to 2; and Novak is just 24 years old and Hewitt is basically finished with his career. Facts, please, none of your unsupported opinions will be accepted.

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 6:59 pm

No actually I was mocking your dismissal of Hewitt for his titles by making the inevitable relative argument about eras.

See, your latest one is full of them again when they are entirely dependent on era strength.

The thread - which you started, mind - if increasingly posted on by different people who agree with the broad thrust of my suggestion that Nole is the 2011 Hewitt.

By the way, you wrongly dismiss Lleyton as a bottom tier #1. Which tier do you place the current 6 week #1 in? Ooh, let me guess....... Whistle

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:09 pm

Actually, you mustn't be following the thread as most people don't see this equivalency in style or accomplishment between Novak and Hewitt. Are you now trying to get out of your hypocrisy in the eras debate by claiming that you werent stating that today's tennis is weaker than what we witnessed 5 or 10 years ago? I can very clearly remember a certain individual starting a thread on this very website who claimed that the current era was weaker than the early Fed era.

And your allusion to all your fellow fed fans agreeing with you, still doesn't cover the paucity of any facts to support your argument. I don't care if you bring Cameron, Blair, and Brown to post in your favor if you got no facts, which you don't.

My argument is not based on relevant eras, it is based on the fact that one players has won 450 percent more master's titles and more grandslams as the other and that he is 6 years younger. This "eras" debate is only ancilliary to my main thesis.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:24 pm

Socal, It leaves us, as I have said previously, with Sampras being the only real difference between the 2 years.
If you were to say that 1996 - 2004 were weaker than the pre and post years I would probably agree, with a few important caveats.
1. choosing calendar years as start/end points is arbitrary and a bit lazy. 'Eras' tend to merge into one another without definite cut-off points
2. There are strong periods even with those years, albeit lasting a shorter time. A year when Hewitt, Keurten, Agassi and Kafelnikov are all playing well is a strong year. Keurten, let's not forget was a VERY highly regarded clay courter, many saying he was the best since Borg, until Rafa came along. Again, his career was badly affected by his hip injury.
3. Any difference in 'era's is fairly marginal

No 'era' has really has more than 2 truly GOAT-list players playing their very best - Borg/McEnroe, Sampras/Agassi, Fed/Rafa and those don't last for very long.

PS out of curiousity, do you see me as one of those federophiles that you mention?
PPS At some point I'm going to have to make a joke along the lines of "you and your socal-ed tennis knowledge" - not because I mean it, but I just like the pun.

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:46 pm

Anyone who doesn't slate Hewitt is a Federophile. Legendkiller has now been inducted, apparantly.

All this fuss because I happened to have watched Hewitts career closely and consider him one of the stand-out players of the last 15 years, and have bserved the similarities in style and method between him and Djokovic. Rolling Eyes

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:47 pm

Julius, I don't classify you at all in the extreme fedophile category. Most federer fans can and do appreciate other player for the talent and accomplishments. There is a narrow category of Fed fan that feels like they must diminish every great champion after Federer and must greedily guard any area of Fed's legacy.

On your main points:
1. Yes, I agree it isn't a clean break based on year to year. And yes eras do merge in and part of the difficulty I have is to set cut offs. The cutoffs when you are trying to delineate may have give and take in them.

2. Can't disagree with that either players step up and have stretches where they play dominant tennis

3. this is where I kind of diverge. And this I guess is a yes or no answer more than anything. It is always, always hard to dominate even for a short time on the ATP tour the competition is never weak, only lets say weaker to other years and eras. But that difference is more than what I would say is marginal. It can make a big difference to a player's career to not have to play a Fed or a Nadal at peak form.

by legendkillar Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:49 pm

socal1976 wrote:Its funny, being forced to look back at Hewitt's dominant years I came to the realization of how strong my logic is about the weaker period of the late 90s and early 2000s. Hewitt finished #1 in 2002 with 61 match wins 5 titles, one master's series, the year end master's and a grandslam. That year Hewitt finished as wordl #1. In 2008 Novak Djokokovic wins 4 titles, a masters, the master's cup, a grandslam and reaches the semi of 3 of the 4 grandslams. He wins 63 matches that year and finishes a distant 3rd in the points race.

Legend, can't disagree with you more in the analysis. No way Hewitt's backhand is better than Djoko's in his prime or ever. I watched hewitt when he was dominating I just didn't watch as much as I do now. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two backhands, Hewitt's is solid but very pedestrian. It would never break down but he would rarely hit a winner with it. Hewitt's big weapon when he was on tour was his return of serve and forehand, not his backhand. Even at his most dominant I don't think anyone would have rated his backhand as the best in the game or even nearly the best in the game.

So I would disagree with your analysis, Novak has both a better forehand and backhand. Again I am not saying hewitt isn't a great player, but what I am saying is that clearly Djokovic is quantifiably and significantly better and that other than that both players are fast baseliners there really aren't many similarities in their game. You know how I know Djokovic is better unlike all of you guys I actually looked at the facts and use them in my argument. Like the fact that Hewitt this dominant great won exactly 2 master's series in his 12 year career. And that Djokovic won 2 master's series in the month of May this year. And even before this year Novak had two and half times the Master's shields Hewitt had now well his lead is monstrous. 9 master's to 2 masters. 3 grandslams to 2 grandslams and one player is at the half point of their career and the other is finished with his. Proof is in the facts which none of the hewitt proponents have produced to show equivalency.

Socal if you read my analysis properly, you would see that I said Djokovic had the better FH than Hewitt and that both players had strong BH's and I rated both equally.

I am sorry socal, but I am not buying into this propaganda rubbish about how good Djokovic is just in this one season. You choose to cheapen greatness to support your bias opinion of Djokovic.

Hewitt was pioneer of how today's game is played. Him and Federer took the mantle and are responsible for how players like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have had to up their strength on court to dominate in the rankings.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:52 pm

bogbrush wrote:Anyone who doesn't slate Hewitt is a Federophile. Legendkiller has now been inducted, apparantly.

All this fuss because I happened to have watched Hewitts career closely and consider him one of the stand-out players of the last 15 years, and have bserved the similarities in style and method between him and Djokovic.

Again a lot of monologuing with little factual back up, sarcasm for the sake of sarcasm. You equated Hewitt and Djokovic in terms of accomplishment, style, and talent. I have clearly refuted each one of these points. For example, it is clear to any first grader that 9 is more than 2. And that 3 is more than 2. Aren't you guys the same people who have coronated Roger as goat because of his 16 grandslams, so let me get this straight having more grandslams means your better if you are Roger, but that isn't the case for Nadal or Djokovic judging by the arguments you are making.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:53 pm

Well, if we can agree on 2 out of 3, I think that's where I'm happy to call it a day on this thread. If I could find an emoticon for a handshake I'd use it.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:56 pm

Legend, I read your post I know that you stated their backhands are equal, and that is my whole problem with your analysis. Your whole analysis equating Nole's talent with Hewitt's talent and accomplishment hinges on this very point. And it is clearly wrong. I have watched both men in their prime and equating the hewitt backhand is just not correct.

The Djokovic backhand is on another level. It has been consensus, consensus one of the top 5 backhands in the game for the last few years. I can't think of any, any period in hewitt's peak or otherwise that his backhand was remotely that highly regarded. Now that you agree the forehand of Djoko is better, and the backhand everybody else in the world would agree Djoko's is better your entire argument breaks down.

If Novak is just as fast and has a better forehand and backhand there is no way hewitt could live with him in the rallies.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 7:57 pm

Definetly, julius have a good one. And by the way I agreed on 2 out of 3 and gave you a qualified agreement on point three. We are simpatico on this.

by legendkillar Sun 24 Jul 2011, 8:01 pm

socal is doesn't break down. In Hewitt's prime, he would wipe the floor with Djokovic. You view of my analysis could hardlier be anymore bias if you tried. Djokovic may have speed, but his footwork is nowhere near as tidier than Hewitt's. This is where you vision of how good Djokovic is breaks down.

I can't remember anyone putting Djokovic's BH in the top 5 for the last few years. It is only this year that Djokovic has consistently put his game together.

Like I said, time will dictate how good Djokovic is. On faster courts that Hewitt dominated on, your telling me that Djokovic would be equally as good??? Don't think so.

by bogbrush Sun 24 Jul 2011, 8:12 pm

This slating of Hewitt makes me think you just can't have watched him at his peak. I could excuse you for missing it because he got so many injuries quickly, but at his best he was an absolute monster. That job he did on Pete Sampras in the final of the 2001 USO was shocking to watch.

On top of that, he basically owned Roger Federer and it wasn't until the AO of 2004 that Federer got into him.

As a fan of Henman I was more sure Tim couldn't beat him at Wimbledon than I even was over Sampras. That's how tought Hewitt was at the time.

Tennis didn't begin with the current top 3 set-up.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:53 pm

legendkillar wrote:socal is doesn't break down. In Hewitt's prime, he would wipe the floor with Djokovic. You view of my analysis could hardlier be anymore bias if you tried. Djokovic may have speed, but his footwork is nowhere near as tidier than Hewitt's. This is where you vision of how good Djokovic is breaks down.

I can't remember anyone putting Djokovic's BH in the top 5 for the last few years. It is only this year that Djokovic has consistently put his game together.

Like I said, time will dictate how good Djokovic is. On faster courts that Hewitt dominated on, your telling me that Djokovic would be equally as good??? Don't think so.

Novak would certainly cream him on clay now wouldn't he, there is one advantage. And i can't see it being much different on the faster surfaces as well. And come on legend, who hasn't rated the Djokovic backhand highly. As long as he has been a star on the tour it has been talked about as one of the 5 best backhands or best backhands on tour. When have we ever been able to say that about Hewitt's backhand, never. It isn't all of sudden this season that Djokovic started having a lights out backhand, he has had it for years and people have been mentioning it as one of the best two handers for years. See this is where your argument breaks down. You would like to equate one of the best backhands on tour the last few years to a guy who was never known for that shot although it was a solid enough shot. This is a clear and objective advantage in the game of the two stars. And no way would i favor hewitt over Djokovic on slower or faster surfaces. After this year you can't even make that argument about grass being a superior Hewitt surface, as that isn't as clear cut an advantage either.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 10:57 pm

bogbrush wrote:This slating of Hewitt makes me think you just can't have watched him at his peak. I could excuse you for missing it because he got so many injuries quickly, but at his best he was an absolute monster. That job he did on Pete Sampras in the final of the 2001 USO was shocking to watch.

On top of that, he basically owned Roger Federer and it wasn't until the AO of 2004 that Federer got into him.

As a fan of Henman I was more sure Tim couldn't beat him at Wimbledon than I even was over Sampras. That's how tought Hewitt was at the time.

Tennis didn't begin with the current top 3 set-up.

Again, i saw hewitt in his prime and was shocked by the destruction of Sampras at the USO, a very old an pretty much over with Sampras at that stage but still a big and shocking win. No one claim tennis started with the big 3 of today. But it is pretty clear when matching Hewitt's career accomplishments to Djokovic, even though he has a six year head start on him, that even still Hewitt is no where on equal footing with Novak. Not in terms of the number of big events both players have won. Novak has one more slam and 7 more master's and he is 24. Like I said, this is a slight, you meant it as a slight and you can't wiggle your way out of it.

by noleisthebest Sun 24 Jul 2011, 11:18 pm

I can't believe this is still going.....

It's obvious now that Hewitt is the GOAT, and that he was born in the wrong era. If only all the players were 3 inches shorter and couldn't play their forehand, than ....
I think Federer should be ashamed of his undeserved height and forehand, Nadal of his fighting spirit and Novak of his bestness.

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 11:35 pm

noleisthebest wrote:I can't believe this is still going.....

It's obvious now that Hewitt is the GOAT, and that he was born in the wrong era. If only all the players were 3 inches shorter and couldn't play their forehand, than ....
I think Federer should be ashamed of his undeserved height and forehand, Nadal of his fighting spirit and Novak of his bestness.

Nitb, I mean this is what we Novak fans have to put up with. I guess it is a sign of respect that the Federistas now feel like they have to diminish and attack Novak's accomplishments like they did mercilessly to Nadal. Wait till Novak wins some more I predict that each additional grandslam will make the chorus even louder.

by Chazfazzer Sun 24 Jul 2011, 11:41 pm

This thread has become a bit laughable; it seems like there's one camp that's now overrating Hewitt's ability, and one camp underrating it, with no real middle ground. Legend, I highly doubt that Hewitt would ever have 'wiped the floor' with Djokovic, whether he was in his prime or not. In fact, I really can't see Hewitt beating Djokovic in the form the Serb is in now; Djokovic has a better forehand and backhand as well as superior movement. Hewitt was good, but I think his rapid slip down the rankings is as much to do with the other players overtaking him as it has to do with his injuries. His shots were solid but not powerful enough to compete with today's players. He was a great competitor, but competitiveness can only take you so far when you've got the next generation of players blasting you off court (eg. Federer's utter destruction of him in US Open final in 2004).

by socal1976 Sun 24 Jul 2011, 11:45 pm

Chazfazzer wrote:This thread has become a bit laughable; it seems like there's one camp that's now overrating Hewitt's ability, and one camp underrating it, with no real middle ground. Legend, I highly doubt that Hewitt would ever have 'wiped the floor' with Djokovic, whether he was in his prime or not. In fact, I really can't see Hewitt beating Djokovic in the form the Serb is in now; Djokovic has a better forehand and backhand as well as superior movement. Hewitt was good, but I think his rapid slip down the rankings is as much to do with the other players overtaking him as it has to do with his injuries. His shots were solid but not powerful enough to compete with today's players. He was a great competitor, but competitiveness can only take you so far when you've got the next generation of players blasting you off court (eg. Federer's utter destruction of him in US Open final in 2004).

Can completely agree with this statement. Lucid, clear, just an all around excellent post. This is exactly what I have been saying. Not much to add to this statement. Clear and concise gets right to all the main and frankly obvious points. No one is claiming hewitt isn't a great player but we are doing a comparison between two multiple slam champions and hewitt doesn't pass muster on this one.

by Chazfazzer Mon 25 Jul 2011, 12:01 am

Can completely agree with this statement. Lucid, clear, just an all around excellent post. This is exactly what I have been saying. Not much to add to this statement. Clear and concise gets right to all the main and frankly obvious points. No one is claiming hewitt isn't a great player but we are doing a comparison between two multiple slam champions and hewitt doesn't pass muster on this one.

Why thank you! I had a feeling when I was typing that I was producing something very special; something glorious. In fact, at one point I looked out my window and a beam of heavenly light was shining through the darkness and I could hear the faint sound of a heavenly choir in the distance.

by legendkillar Mon 25 Jul 2011, 6:30 am

I do like how people are so quick to diminish players achievements because a favourite player of theirs is doing so well.

Again Chazfazzer, you are basing the argument on current form of Djokovic. I am sorry but there is no way that Djokovic would blast his way through an in form Hewitt. Based on fast courts. Next it will be Djokovic would beat Sampras in his prime.

by bogbrush Mon 25 Jul 2011, 8:07 am

Socal is rushing around to form alliances now; having discounted every part of Hewitts game (all couched in a "respect for a great player" envelope of course) he then claims not to be part of the "camp underrating it" that Chaz refers to.

Hewitt and Djokovic were compared by me because they play to a similar pattern, their strengths are roughly based on the same incredible ability to retrieve, scurrying left and right all day long, reaching the unreachable and returning it with intent. Sure, they have variations - Djokovics forehand, Hewitts mental strength, for instance - but Nole represents the role Hewitt made his own in 2001.

Socal hasn't grasped that basic purpose of the comparison and so has gone into a hissy trying to "prove" Djokovic is better. I'm not even debating who is the best (save sticking up for a top player unfairly maligned, one who made a big impact on the game at a very early age).

Nadal has parallells to powerful, relentless left handed claycourters of yesteryear but the differences are too broad to warrant this kind of comparison. I can't think of a previous-era Federer but ideas would be welcome. But I can see the lineage Djokovic is part of.

by Fedex_the_best Mon 25 Jul 2011, 10:12 am

I am so confused - can soembody please help me understand what 'weak era' means.

Federer wins everything in 2003-07 and everybody calls it a weak era. Hewitt shares slams with others in 2001-02 and that is the basis for Socal to call that a 'weak era'!

Isnt 'weak era' for Nadal fans is before Nadal started winning everything and for Novak fans is one before he started winning and for Murray fans, well since he isnt winning anything, it must be a very 'strong era' (reverse logic to suit!!)

Socal, why is 2011 not a weak era when Fed is over the hill and Novak seems to have Nadal's numbers now? No wait, you have changed the definition of 'weak era' - it is when Hewitt was number 1 without winning much so using that logic an 'anti weak-era' or the 'strongest ever era' is the one where one player sweeps everything which undoubtedly was 2003-07 - so was the 'weak era' of UE the 'strongest era' according to you?

by socal1976 Mon 25 Jul 2011, 6:15 pm

Fedex, I have gone into this weak era point over and over again. It is not the main point of this argument. Bogbrush knows what he is doing when he makes the Hewitt comparison. And look at how deftly he avoids actually comparing the two players career accomplishments. The reason he avoides it is because frankly he knows that Hewitt doesn't match up. Hewitt is a great champion but he is known as basically a transitional number #1, who didn't have a lot of firepower and was basically the best player between the fall of pete and the rise of Fed. Bogbrush frankly means this comment as a slight and that is how I take it. And he has produced zero zero facts to show an equivalency in terms of style or accomplishment.

As for the Weak era aspect of my argument, just go and look at Hewitt's records in 01 and 02, he puts those kind of numbers up in this era and he might get the #2 possibly the #3 ranking, he would in no way finish as number #1. Maybe late 90s and 20000s is considered weak because every lower regarded #1 we have ever, EVER HAD has occurred in that period. That is why many knowledgeable people call the time from Pete's decline to Roger's rise as a weak era.

by Sponsored content