Bogbrush's Hewitt=Djokovic Boondoggle

First topic message reminder :

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.

legendkillar wrote: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.

No one is diminishing Hewitt's accomplishments. The man was a solid number #1 player. I love how comparing Hewitt with 2 slams, and 2 Master's to Djokovic (3 slams and 9 masters) is somehow turned into away to disrespect Hewitt. If anything it is Novak fans that should be offended. The fact remains legend I have yet to see any of the hewitt faction in this debate produce any evidence to show that Novak and Hewitt are the same. Ok legend using the same criteria you and bogbrush have established I have found another equivalency in the game, using the bogbrush/legendkillar method:

Giles Simon=Andy Murray

both are fast
both are defensive
both play from the baseline
both are good returners
both have good backhands.

So Andy Murray and Giles simon are equals. Who cares if Andy has won 6 master's and Simon has won zero. Who cares if Andy murray has been to 3 more slam finals. I mean if 7 more master's and one more grandslam is not enough to distinguish Djokovic from hewitt, then basically Andy Murray is just another Giles Simon.

socal1976 wrote:That is why many knowledgeable people call the time from Pete's decline to Roger's rise as a weak era.

Some knowledgeable people on 606v2 (and some on 606v1) call 2000-2005 a 'Wee Keira'.
Some knowledgeable people on 606v2 (and some on 606v1) call 2003-2007 a 'Weak Era'.
Some knowledgeable people on 606v2 (and some on 606v1) call 2000-2010 a 'Weak' Era.

Hence the so-called 'knowledgeable' groups have developed a schism and have taken their respective knowledge and decided to have an argument on 606v2.

The faith of Tennis has never advocated a 'weak era' theory and yet another 'knowledgeable' group is surprised on such a sycophantic fervour to declare one or more 'eras' as weak diminishing the core values of the religion of Tennis.

+1000

There simply is no weak era. It's a myth, but the reason for it is clear. It's done by fans to promote their hero.

bogbrush wrote:+1000

There simply is no weak era. It's a myth, but the reason for it is clear. It's done by fans to promote their hero.

Is the bogbrush of today disputing the bogbrush of the past who claimed that current era was weaker than the era Roger dominated. On this very website you come in here and make a weak era argument for the current era. Somehow it is ok to knock the era after Roger's dominance as weak but to ignore the laundry list of mediocre talents that made up the top 5 at the start of Roger's reign.

Nope, the current era is not weak. There is no weak era. The only weak thing around is the mentality of people who try to ramp their heroes achievements by suggesting any era is Golden.

You know, by using stupid comments like "laundry list of mediocre talents".

Hey, rejoice that your hero has 3 Slams and I for one consider him a worthy #1. I respect both him and Hewitt big time, although their shared style of play isn't really my thing, having been totally spoiled by having Federer to watch.

bogbrush wrote:Nope, the current era is not weak. There is no weak era. The only weak thing around is the mentality of people who try to ramp their heroes achievements by suggesting any era is Golden.

You know, by using stupid comments like "laundry list of mediocre talents".

Hey, rejoice that your hero has 3 Slams and I for one consider him a worthy #1. I respect both him and Hewitt big time, although their shared style of play isn't really my thing, having been totally spoiled by having Federer to watch.

That is my whole point, you have been totally spoiled by Roger's greatness. You shouldn't have to rely on someone being as great or even accomplishing nearly as much as Roger to be considered highly worthy of praise. You are talking about the guy that is consensus greatest of all time. My point has been the same that all of you are being to dismissive. Regarding Hewitt, no one has claimed that he isn't a great player and a great champion. However, neither stylistically or in terms of career accomplishments is he the equivalent or near equivalent of Djokovic.

And by the way bogbrush, hate to inform you but I have you so pinned down in this one. Except that either the moderators or some sort of computer error has wiped out some of the record of the jiu jitsu hold that I put you in, in regards to this thread. Really you went way too far with your Djokovic is Hewitt argument completely unsupported after 100 more posts by a single fact. All you two produced was a frankly erroneous analysis that claimed Lleyton hewitt's backhand was as good as Djokovic's. If that unsupported and widely disputed opinion is one of the most important points in your analysis well then you frankly don't have much to stand on.

Hey look socal, I had no idea this went so far beyond tennis for you. I mean, just observing that Djokovic plays the same basic, scurrying left and right game as a former #1 has thrown you into such a spin. I guess you were setting up to claim Djokovic can go in the same paragraph as Federer in the book of greats, and now you see the Hewitt thing as a threat to that. Is that the problem?

If it helps that I say Djokovic has a better backhand than Gandhi will that help? Will you let me up from this pin you have on me if I do?

Bogbrush you know you meant the hewitt comment as an insult and you were exposed, after a hundred or so posts you have not been able to produce one iota of fact or evidence. I am glad you make posts like this, with claims that the only way Djokovic can win is to spend his time scurrying back and forth. It becomes more and more apparent that your Hewitt claim is just another attempt by you to further your agenda of diminishing every champion after fed. All sarcasm aside I refuse to let you out of the jiu jitsu vice you have placed yourself into.

socal1976 wrote:the only way Djokovic can win is to spend his time scurrying back and forth.

I have no idea why we've been arguing for days!

I can say I have a way of drawing a line under this socal.

You compared Murray to Simon. I have no problem with that as the tennis Murray plays is a brand that isn't new. Same with Djokovic. Comparisons are made on the brand of tennis. Is there anyone that could/can play the tennis of a Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Connors? No because they have a brand that defines them. Goes without saying that without Borg, you wouldn't have Nadal, without Connors, you wouldn't have Hewitt, without Sampras you wouldn't have Roddick, without Agassi, no Murray. It's part and parcel of the evolution of tennis. Has Djokovic got a brand of tennis that is so special it defines him? I don't think he has.

Legend, the modern game has developed along a power baseline model. Djokovic and Hewitt's similarities aren't particularly striking. Except that like the vast majority of the tour the play a modern game focused on speed and baseline dominance. In fact, Hewitt is a bit of throw back in that during his peak he was quite a frequent and competent volleyer, in fact on his service games on a faster surface that is how he wanted to finish the point. My point is not that Djokovic doesn't have any similarities to hewitt, they both play the modern baseline oriented style, with hewitt more comfortable up front.

When I see Djokovic I don't see a taller lleyton Hewitt from the way they play, I just don't. Not in the way they play or the level of their accomplishments, or their talent, or their record. I guess in some other minor details they may have similarities as most of the modern players do. Most are great movers, baseliners, and pretty good returners; in that way there are many similar players.

You may not of meant it as a slight I accept that, but Bogbrush obviously did with his "the only way they can win is by scampering side to side" phraseology. He clearly has an agenda, I don't think you do.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:the only way Djokovic can win is to spend his time scurrying back and forth.

I have no idea why we've been arguing for days!

I am not agreeing with you, are you know descending to the level of picking out 8 or 9 words of mine and quoting them out of context. I was pointing out that this "scurrying" verbiage is what you used and this is partly what I dispute. I was quoting you, and disagreeing with it, not accepting your warped view of the tennis world.

socal - why should anyone thinking that Hewitt and Djokovic have similar style games be a slight to either player - I am pretty sure Djokovic wouldn't take it as such.

This is sensitivity beyond reason imho,

socal, I am by no stretches of the imagination saying that Djokovic is Hewitt. There are similarites in the 'brand' of tennis, but the style of which they have play is so different. I wouldn't say Djokovic 'scurrys' around the court like BB has implied. Scurrying is by where a player is out of position and is chasing each ball down when not in control of the point. Many players do this, but not in every point that is being played.

Like you say Hewitt was a good volleyer, but Djokovic has a great drop shot. Like you said the game has evolved and conditions have changed. If Djokovic played in Hewitt's pomp and conditions, it would be difficult as it would for an in pomp Hewitt to play Djokovic now in his form and conditions. If you took Connors-Hewitt-Djokovic you can see a big gap in evolution where Connors had mental toughness, Hewitt then brought in speed, Djokovic has the mental toughness and speed and now power. As future players come through, what could they add to that formula to make them the next 'Djokovic'? Pretty tough ask.

More MTO's?

legendkillar wrote:socal, I am by no stretches of the imagination saying that Djokovic is Hewitt. There are similarites in the 'brand' of tennis, but the style of which they have play is so different. I wouldn't say Djokovic 'scurrys' around the court like BB has implied. Scurrying is by where a player is out of position and is chasing each ball down when not in control of the point. Many players do this, but not in every point that is being played.

Like you say Hewitt was a good volleyer, but Djokovic has a great drop shot. Like you said the game has evolved and conditions have changed. If Djokovic played in Hewitt's pomp and conditions, it would be difficult as it would for an in pomp Hewitt to play Djokovic now in his form and conditions. If you took Connors-Hewitt-Djokovic you can see a big gap in evolution where Connors had mental toughness, Hewitt then brought in speed, Djokovic has the mental toughness and speed and now power. As future players come through, what could they add to that formula to make them the next 'Djokovic'? Pretty tough ask.

Well I guess we have reached a point where we have flushed out our arguements and reach a bit of consensus. My problem with the hewitt/djokovic analogy is more with Bogbrush's agenda behind his comment. It is clear if you look at his commentary and with comments like he can only win a match by scurrying about, shows the true motivation behind the comment. And the reason I take offense is because hewitt was a player that had a short great run but had the game pass him up for whatever reason in his youth. He was also a player that was seen as lacking weapons. This is precisely the insult that he wants to get across with his sideways hewitt compliment.

YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

bogbrush wrote:YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

you're right, if Fed could scurry like Novak, he'd have no trouble beating Nadal

bogbrush wrote:YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

Whatever, BB, with your commentary like your previous comment about adding more MTOS and "scurrying" back and forth and your past commentary on other threads it is obvious what your agenda is. And that is to diminish and degrade the reputations of all champions who are successors or current contemporaries of Federer. You did it to Nadal, and this is a more subtle stab at Djokovic. It is clear to anyone who participates on this site what your agenda is.

Hewitt and Novak have one thing in common, that's for sure, thay're dead passionate and I love it

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

you're right, if Fed could scurry like Novak, he'd have no trouble beating Nadal

Ha, ha, that is a good one Nitb. Make any semicontroversial statements about Roger and see how the fed fans attack in en masse, but I guess we Novak fans shouldn't be upset, when Bogbrush on the eve of our favorite player becoming number #1 compares him to another number one who had a short reign, had the game pass him up in his youth, and lacked weapons. Or when he says the only way Novak can win a match is by scurrying back and forth. It is crystal clear what you are trying to do BB in furtherance of your agenda but it is failing miserably.

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

you're right, if Fed could scurry like Novak, he'd have no trouble beating Nadal

I actually agree with this; the key to beating Nadal is to stay in the rally with him until he blows up; it's what Nole has been doing to him all year, especially in those two American victories where Nadal opened up by blowing him away in the first sets, then ended up running out of steam.Peak Hewitt would have been a real threat to Nadal for precisely that reason. He wouldn't have the offensive weapons, but might easily have outlasted him.

Feds win against Djokovic in Paris came about not because of scurrying ability of course, but because Djokovic had a bye in the quarter final. That much was established by the OP beyond any question.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:YOU take offence? Are you really Novak Djokovic?? Can't be, the real one would be complimented.

Oh, and scurrying is a good word for great retrievers like Hewitt & Djokovic. It carries no negative connotations whatsoever.

you're right, if Fed could scurry like Novak, he'd have no trouble beating Nadal

I actually agree with this; the key to beating Nadal is to stay in the rally with him until he blows up; it's what Nole has been doing to him all year, especially in those two American victories where Nadal opened up by blowing him away in the first sets, then ended up running out of steam.Peak Hewitt would have been a real threat to Nadal for precisely that reason. He wouldn't have the offensive weapons, but might easily have outlasted him.

Feds win against Djokovic in Paris came about not because of scurrying ability of course, but because Djokovic had a bye in the quarter final. That much was established by the OP beyond any question.

I reckon when 2011 tennis year is done and dusted, The Bye will deserve one colossal chapter here...awesome stuff, I mean who says ATP is sanitized these days....there's plenty of material for the seeing eye

I reckon 2011 will be remembered like no other year....so far we've had the Streak, The Wagging finger, The Bye, The Brand Spanking new Number One, Toothless Nadal...(OK Nadal fans, just humour me for my poetic prowess here, don't get upset, will you! )

Then again, some things just don't change and are so deja vu, do they: Murray loses AO final and Wimbledon semi to Nadal, Nadal wins RG Spain is in Davis Cup semi-final, Sod and Berdy are still there to spoil the party (on the pre-tourament paper only), Delpo is still coming back, Dimitrov is still a "young" gun (Nadal must've had 5 slams at his age)...please feel free to add anything I must've missed

noleisthebest wrote:I reckon when 2011 tennis year is done and dusted, The Bye will deserve one colossal chapter here...awesome stuff, I mean who says ATP is sanitized these days....there's plenty of material for the seeing eye

I reckon 2011 will be remembered like no other year....so far we've had the Streak, The Wagging finger, The Bye, The Brand Spanking new Number One, Toothless Nadal...(OK Nadal fans, just humour me for my poetic prowess here, don't get upset, will you! )

Then again, some things just don't change and are so deja vu, do they: Murray loses AO final and Wimbledon semi to Nadal, Nadal wins RG Spain is in Davis Cup semi-final, Sod and Berdy are still there to spoil the party (on the pre-tourament paper only), Delpo is still coming back, Dimitrov is still a "young" gun (Nadal must've had 5 slams at his age)...please feel free to add anything I must've missed

Great to see you are keeping the bye alive and kicking. At a stroke it eliminates you from any accusations of credibility. I suggest you write in to the TV guys and ask them to talk about it. I can see the Fleming eyebrow now.....

Its funny bogbrush other people have commented on the fognini effect on that semi at RG. Aren't you guys the same people who cry because Roger has to wait for Nadal to have his ankle taped for 90 seconds? It impacted that semi in a negative way for Djokovic. Fed played great and capitalized.

On the original post, still waiting for you to come up with one single fact that can equate the two players in question. However, since you don't have any I guess we can consider the case closed.

socal1976 wrote:Its funny bogbrush other people have commented on the fognini effect on that semi at RG. Aren't you guys the same people who cry because Roger has to wait for Nadal to have his ankle taped for 90 seconds? It impacted that semi in a negative way for Djokovic. Fed played great and capitalized.

On the original post, still waiting for you to come up with one single fact that can equate the two players in question. However, since you don't have any I guess we can consider the case closed.

Er..... no I have never mentioned Nadal taping an ankle. To suggest a tennis match result over 5 sets can actually be altered by something as trivial as one guy taping an ankle, or the other guy having a bye in the previous round is comical.

Taping an ankle takes how long? Having a bye prevents the guy from what - training? Having a 4 hour workout against another eliminated player? Both excuses are pathetic.


As for the article YOU started, anyone knowing anything about tennis can see that double-handed retrievers play the same basic game. When you match strengths like great returns then the similarities become clear. Just because you'd rather Nole be stood in the same bracket as Federer doesn't change the facts. Sorry.

Here's an interesting link from 2007 - comparing Djokovic to Hewitt. This was before Djoko had won any slams, so any comparison to Hewitt would have to have been a favourable one
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=109618

There are also comparisons to Federer, Lendl, Monfils & Kafelnikov.

Here, a fan of both Hewitt and Djoko notes some similarities -
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/29278419/0/0/29694170

None of this proves anything of course, because subjective comparisons between two players can never be proven, as such.
I'm happy to say they're more alike to each other than they are to Pete Sampras!

Their similarity is now mainstream.