Aussie Aussie Aussie

Hewitt and Tomic taking centre stage every night. Both through to the 4th round and both have had to battle to get there. Neither would have been expected to be still around in the second week. Could it get any better for the Australians? Well yes it could. Tomic plays Federer on Sunday and is followed on Monday by Hewitt playing Djokovic. Its nice to imagine that tennis will be taking centre stage every evening. This must be the best Australian Open in Australia in recent memory.

Could it still get any better? Could either Tomic or Hewitt get another win?

Hewitt has surprised me, I really thought he would get obliterated by this rising phenom. We can't make excuses about injury or age when he loses to Djokovic. Hewitt is an ageless assassin.

What's Djokovic got that Hewitt doesn't?

Have a soft spot for Hewitt but would be very very very very very very very surprised if he beat Djokovic. Just glad that he seems to still enjoy playing even after all the injuries. A fantastic achievement in itself

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What's Djokovic got that Hewitt doesn't?

An extra gear. Djokovic won't lose a set.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What's Djokovic got that Hewitt doesn't?

As I used to say to social, Djokovic is Hewitts successor.

The answer though is youth, fitness and a game designed for today's environment.

I thought I might be able to bring him back.

The answer though is youth, fitness and a game designed for today's environment.

To be fair Nole does hit the ball cleaner than him, and he has a good dropshot unlike Hewitt who only drops with a volley.

I think Hewitt gets no credit at all for what he was; until devastated by injury he was very good indeed.
He's barely 25% of the player now, of course.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What's Djokovic got that Hewitt doesn't?

There is something that Hewitt will have on Monday that Djokovic won't. Hewitt will have huge home support. Usually this shouldn't make much difference but with Djokovic maybe it could. Djokovic so wants to be liked and sometimes takes it personally when he isn't. I've seen him get upset with the crowd when they don't cheer him. He would so like to get the respect he must feel he deserves as the number one and title holder. On Monday he will be the bad guy. If Hewitt can somehow grab the first set I can see it getting difficult for him.

bogbrush wrote:I think Hewitt gets no credit at all for what he was; until devastated by injury he was very good indeed.
He's barely 25% of the player now, of course.

Spot on. It's easy to deride a player when he's way past his best. Had it not been for federer Hewitt would have had 4-5 slams most likely and a longer spell at number 1.

bogbrush wrote:I think Hewitt gets no credit at all for what he was; until devastated by injury he was very good indeed.
He's barely 25% of the player now, of course.

Seems to be a recurring pattern... His courtside interview was interesting where he said he wasn't even looking past the first round and was just hoping his body would hold out.

I honestly think that Hewitt has next to no chance against Novak unless the latter is injured. Hewitt no longer has the wheels or the engine to frustrate Djokovic. Against a young Hewitt, this would have been a tight affair.

Do you really think the Hewitt of 2002 woudl have had any chance? That's 10 years ago and the game has moved on so much since! Hewitt would not have qualified had he not improved since 2002.

To start with his shots are much harder now than then.

There's nothing underrated about Hewitt. The game simply passed him by after his injury problems. There isn't a single shot in the book a young Hewitt hit better than Djokovic. Even his greatest strength which was his movement has been taken to a new level by Nole. Basically, Nole generates more power, has more tactical options afforded by his technical superiority, serves better, returns better, moves better - you name it.

Lets not get carried away with the anti-weak-era-theory agenda in positing what is untrue. And it's near impossible for a top player like Fed or Nole to so much as make pro at 80% of their max potential, talk less of Hewitt making the last 16 of a GS at 25% of his peak level performance. Hyperbole in the extreme.

Lleyton's chances?

Even the "come on" sounds from another era. His game relied on him for ever being 22 but, sadly for him, tennis is not like the "Never ending story" and he simply got past his best-by date.

Tenez wrote:Do you really think the Hewitt of 2002 woudl have had any chance? That's 10 years ago and the game has moved on so much since! Hewitt would not have qualified had he not improved since 2002.

To start with his shots are much harder now than then.

Of course the Hewitt of 2002 was a better player. But I understand your point that advances in nutrition, training and most importantly technology have made the game more physical. Hence my statement probably needs qualification in that Hewitt of 2002, with access to all the above in this era, would have been a very tough challenge for Djokovic. When comparing eras it is not fair to juxtapose a player of a bygone era into the current field without taking into account the changes in the game and the advantages the current crop have in that regard. Otherwise, the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Mac, etc would all be relegated to nobodies in this era.

mthierry wrote:Lets not get carried away with the anti-weak-era-theory agenda in positing what is untrue. And it's near impossible for a top player like Fed or Nole to so much as make pro at 80% of their max potential, talk less of Hewitt making the last 16 of a GS at 25% of his peak level performance. Hyperbole in the extreme.

Can you please explain this in coherent sentences?

emancipator wrote:

Tenez wrote:Do you really think the Hewitt of 2002 woudl have had any chance? That's 10 years ago and the game has moved on so much since! Hewitt would not have qualified had he not improved since 2002.

To start with his shots are much harder now than then.

Of course the Hewitt of 2002 was a better player. But I understand your point that advances in nutrition, training and most importantly technology have made the game more physical. Hence my statement probably needs qualification in that Hewitt of 2002, with access to all the above in this era, would have been a very tough challenge for Djokovic. When comparing eras it is not fair to juxtapose a player of a bygone era into the current field without taking into account the changes in the game and the advantages the current crop have in that regard. Otherwise, the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Mac, etc would all be relegated to nobodies in this era.

You could say that Hewitt was a first version of today's game (Djoko/Murray). I think BB and others think in those lines but we tend to forget that Hewitt's game was obsolete by 2004 and he was fit and better than in 2002 when he was on top of the world. Teh 60 76 60 of USO 2004 showed the end of his game I like to think that 2004-2007 was an era of great shot makers who did not have Hewitt stamina and patience but had teh firepower to shake him off. In my view he has improved. Not as much as he could have because of injuries but adding a bit of weight to his shots makes him a better player.

Djoko is just surfing a similar wave and is a very complete player with amazing mouvement and very good grund shots. However I do believe that the coming generation will be able to shake him off like the 2004-2007 players managed to get the better of Hewitt.

I might be wrong on this...but not by much.

emancipator wrote:

mthierry wrote:Lets not get carried away with the anti-weak-era-theory agenda in positing what is untrue. And it's near impossible for a top player like Fed or Nole to so much as make pro at 80% of their max potential, talk less of Hewitt making the last 16 of a GS at 25% of his peak level performance. Hyperbole in the extreme.

Can you please explain this in coherent sentences?

Except your grasp of basic English is poor - which isn't plausible considering your posts - I don't see anything incoherent about what I typed.

Please, debate your point without snide remarks.

Sorry, it wasn't intended as a snide remark; I didn't realise that you were referencing BB's post. Of course, 25% is an exaggeration but in BB's defense, I'm sure he was just exaggerating for emphasis.

In any case my point stands.

I'm sure many others have made this point before. To juxtapose players from previous eras, or even worse, to judge them when they are competing on their last legs, without considering the prevailing conditions and then to deride their games' and accomplishments is unfair.

By that yardstick, as already mentioned, Laver becomes a nobody. Lendl's FH was weak, Becker's serve was WTA standard and so on. Indeed this applies to all sports and even moreso to those sports which are heavily influenced by playing conditions and changes in technology.

I certainly thought so too. Was just trying to point out the fine margins in the pro-game that makes the exaggeration a little excessive.

The thing is, I believe that argument applies a lot less to players who straddle eras like Hewitt. It's more a case of his contemporaries and emerging stars leaving him behind than the conditions and modern technology, nutrition etc passing him by.

Hewitt has been winning ATP titles since '98 (aged 16). I think it's fair to say that he's from an older era. He was a top player until the mid-noughties when injuries started taking their toll.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:What's Djokovic got that Hewitt doesn't?

Very little actually if we discount even better defence, better forehand, better backhand, better all court game, better first serve, better physical fitness and supreme confidence.

If Djokovic plays near his best it will be straights. Same for Federer.

I'll be a little surprised if Tomic and Hewitt get 2 sets between them, very surprised if they get 3 between them.

I am very confident Djokovic will win through in straight sets and similarly as will Roger Federer. It would be nice to see either being extended a little but I can't see it.

Watching the match Hewitt Raonic, it reminded me how much I disliked Hewitt back then.

Sure a fighter but not a very nice one. Plus he was one of the first real physical player relying on those new strings. He looks completely possessed when playing. Certainly not my style of players.