Andy Roddick vs. Lleyton Hewitt

[tmac4real]

Both are former No.1 ranked players in the world and appraoch the games in different ways.

Who would you say will go down as the better player when it's all said and done? Who was better in their prime.

As far as accomplishments go I'd say Lleyton Hewitt has Roddick

[Slava]

Lleyton Hewitt easily. All Andy Roddick has to show for his career is a US open and one embarassment too many against Roger Federer.

When he did enter the scene, he had immense potential and the heart to run every volley like it was match point but his game got predictable and he didn't imrpove on certain aspects of his game that he should have got better at to win more tournaments.

Hewitt on other hand was extremely consistent in his style of play, a hard baseliner and seemed top modeled himself after Agassi. Two time wimbeldon champion and a former world #1, though his stay at the top wasn't as long as he would have wanted, he did stay #1 for quite soemtime and Pete Sampras thought he had the fastest pair of feet he's ever played against.

I think Hewitt trumps Roddick in head 2 heads too.

[Doctor MJ]

Lleyton Hewitt easily. All Andy Roddick has to show for his career is a US open and one embarassment too many against Roger Federer.

When he did enter the scene, he had immense potential and the heart to run every volley like it was match point but his game got predictable and he didn't imrpove on certain aspects of his game that he should have got better at to win more tournaments.

Hewitt on other hand was extremely consistent in his style of play, a hard baseliner and seemed top modeled himself after Agassi. Two time wimbeldon champion and a former world #1, though his stay at the top wasn't as long as he would have wanted, he did stay #1 for quite soemtime and Pete Sampras thought he had the fastest pair of feet he's ever played against.

I think Hewitt trumps Roddick in head 2 heads too.

I expect most people to think like this but the difference between the two is largely an illusion caused by era differences.

# of Majors wins: Hewitt 2, Roddick 1
# of Major finals: Hewitt 4, Roddick 4
# of Major semis: Hewitt 8, Roddick 8
# of Major quarters: Roddick 15, Hewitt 14
Total Titles: Hewitt 26, Roddick 25
Head to head after Roddick turned 19: Hewitt 3, Roddick 3

Now factor in: Hewitt peaked where there was a void of competition, Roddick peak in the Federer era. Simply remove Federer, Roddick's accomplishments would look more impressive than Hewitt's. Place Federer in Hewitt's peak and Hewitt never wins a major and goes down in history as a complete footnote.

Roddick gets a lot of criticism his way because he failed to live up to his hype and because his game is so one dimensional, but the reality is that there's no one to emerge this decade who has clearly accomplished more than Roddick except for Federer and Nadal (though to be clear Djokovic' peak is clearly superior).

[BlackMamba]

well based on my opinion lewitt is slightly better than roddick because he had a better all around game. even if you compare their numbers hewitt is ahead.

i think what messed it for both was their bad character and i believe that part frustrates them and takes them away from the game and their concentration.

[Marmoset]

well based on my opinion lewitt is slightly better than roddick because he had a better all around game. even if you compare their numbers hewitt is ahead.

I agree with this. It's not just the style of play, with Roddick being so dependent on his serve, but also the surface of play, with Hewitt being competent on clay while Roddick doesn't even bother to try anymore.

i think what messed it for both was their bad character and i believe that part frustrates them and takes them away from the game and their concentration.

I think it's definitely true for Roddick, not so sure for Hewitt. Hewitt is said to have 'mellowed' in recent years since becoming a father and going through injuries. But, some people think the attitude and fire that he had is what drove him to be so good, and that the mellower version of Hewiit can't compete because he doesn't have the raw ability of the other top players. It's really hard to say, because he hasn't been healthy for more than a few months a time in several years.

[Slava]

Lleyton Hewitt easily. All Andy Roddick has to show for his career is a US open and one embarassment too many against Roger Federer.

When he did enter the scene, he had immense potential and the heart to run every volley like it was match point but his game got predictable and he didn't imrpove on certain aspects of his game that he should have got better at to win more tournaments.

Hewitt on other hand was extremely consistent in his style of play, a hard baseliner and seemed top modeled himself after Agassi. Two time wimbeldon champion and a former world #1, though his stay at the top wasn't as long as he would have wanted, he did stay #1 for quite soemtime and Pete Sampras thought he had the fastest pair of feet he's ever played against.

I think Hewitt trumps Roddick in head 2 heads too.

I expect most people to think like this but the difference between the two is largely an illusion caused by era differences.

# of Majors wins: Hewitt 2, Roddick 1
# of Major finals: Hewitt 4, Roddick 4
# of Major semis: Hewitt 8, Roddick 8
# of Major quarters: Roddick 15, Hewitt 14
Total Titles: Hewitt 26, Roddick 25
Head to head after Roddick turned 19: Hewitt 3, Roddick 3

Now factor in: Hewitt peaked where there was a void of competition, Roddick peak in the Federer era. Simply remove Federer, Roddick's accomplishments would look more impressive than Hewitt's. Place Federer in Hewitt's peak and Hewitt never wins a major and goes down in history as a complete footnote.

Roddick gets a lot of criticism his way because he failed to live up to his hype and because his game is so one dimensional, but the reality is that there's no one to emerge this decade who has clearly accomplished more than Roddick except for Federer and Nadal (though to be clear Djokovic' peak is clearly superior).

Well I disagree with the part that Hewitt peaked in an era void of competition because he came into the limelight when both Sampras and Agassi had a little bit left in them and he defeated Sampras to win a US open title. There were other noteworthy players during that time including Pat Rafter, Philippousis, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Tim Henman, who should have won a Wimbledon title for all his talent and Kuerten etc, who lived under Sampras' shadow.

Also Roddick's accomplishments do not come close to what Hewitt accomplished in his prime like being the youngest to be named world #1 and maintaining it for like 75 weeks. Also his performances for Australia in the Davis Cup are far more impressive than Roddick's.

Equating Roddick's failure to win grandslams to Federer's influence would be as misleading to say as Ivanisevic winning more than his solitary WImbeldon had it not been for Sampras' presence. Ivanisevic like Roddick and Safin was a highly talented player with a fiery attitude and lack of mental focus to make the most of his abilities, while Hewitt always channeled his intensity the right way.

[Doctor MJ]

Well I disagree with the part that Hewitt peaked in an era void of competition because he came into the limelight when both Sampras and Agassi had a little bit left in them and he defeated Sampras to win a US open title. There were other noteworthy players during that time including Pat Rafter, Philippousis, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Tim Henman, who should have won a Wimbledon title for all his talent and Kuerten etc, who lived under Sampras' shadow.

Also Roddick's accomplishments do not come close to what Hewitt accomplished in his prime like being the youngest to be named world #1 and maintaining it for like 75 weeks. Also his performances for Australia in the Davis Cup are far more impressive than Roddick's.

Equating Roddick's failure to win grandslams to Federer's influence would be as misleading to say as Ivanisevic winning more than his solitary WImbeldon had it not been for Sampras' presence. Ivanisevic like Roddick and Safin was a highly talented player with a fiery attitude and lack of mental focus to make the most of his abilities, while Hewitt always channeled his intensity the right way.

You probably don't remember it, but when I say Hewitt's peak coincided with a lull in the men's game, I'm not diagnosing in retrospect. When it was happening it was frequently stated that men's tennis was in between eras, and that Hewitt was the type of talent who would undoubtedly get surpassed when others in his age bracket reached their peak.

Your statement of Hewitt's accomplishments of "youngest to #1" and "75 at #1" to me are classic misunderstanding of what makes a player great.

For the "youngest" part, if two players play 6 matches, and Player A wins the first 3, does that mean he accomplished more than Player B? No. There's no difference with youngest to #1 if the youngest to #1 can't keep it up.

For the "75 weeks", I've seen this a lot on RealGM and it always boggles my mind: Being #1 is not some additional accomplishment beyond the tournament victories that led to it. Being #1 at time A isn't necessarily more impressive than being #X at time B. Case in point: If you look at the ATP Point races, Nadal's #2 finishes slaughter Hewitt's #1. So very clearly, Hewitt only finished #1 because the competition for #1 was a hell of a lot weaker, which means that the competition for the points in tournaments at that time was weaker.

As far as Davis Cup, I won't speak to that. I don't factor that in to my evaluations, but I've got no objection to you doing so.

Your statement about "channeling intensity" is just strange. Take a look at the numbers I listed before. They are virtually identical for god's sake. If you compare those two numbers with Safin's you'll find that Safin doesn't look anything like Roddick in the patterns of his success. Roddick's not a Safin, he's a Hewitt: Often getting to the quarterfinals, rarely winning.

[Slava]

Well I disagree with the part that Hewitt peaked in an era void of competition because he came into the limelight when both Sampras and Agassi had a little bit left in them and he defeated Sampras to win a US open title. There were other noteworthy players during that time including Pat Rafter, Philippousis, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Tim Henman, who should have won a Wimbledon title for all his talent and Kuerten etc, who lived under Sampras' shadow.

Also Roddick's accomplishments do not come close to what Hewitt accomplished in his prime like being the youngest to be named world #1 and maintaining it for like 75 weeks. Also his performances for Australia in the Davis Cup are far more impressive than Roddick's.

Equating Roddick's failure to win grandslams to Federer's influence would be as misleading to say as Ivanisevic winning more than his solitary WImbeldon had it not been for Sampras' presence. Ivanisevic like Roddick and Safin was a highly talented player with a fiery attitude and lack of mental focus to make the most of his abilities, while Hewitt always channeled his intensity the right way.

You probably don't remember it, but when I say Hewitt's peak coincided with a lull in the men's game, I'm not diagnosing in retrospect. When it was happening it was frequently stated that men's tennis was in between eras, and that Hewitt was the type of talent who would undoubtedly get surpassed when others in his age bracket reached their peak.

Your statement of Hewitt's accomplishments of "youngest to #1" and "75 at #1" to me are classic misunderstanding of what makes a player great.

For the "youngest" part, if two players play 6 matches, and Player A wins the first 3, does that mean he accomplished more than Player B? No. There's no difference with youngest to #1 if the youngest to #1 can't keep it up.

For the "75 weeks", I've seen this a lot on RealGM and it always boggles my mind: Being #1 is not some additional accomplishment beyond the tournament victories that led to it. Being #1 at time A isn't necessarily more impressive than being #X at time B. Case in point: If you look at the ATP Point races, Nadal's #2 finishes slaughter Hewitt's #1. So very clearly, Hewitt only finished #1 because the competition for #1 was a hell of a lot weaker, which means that the competition for the points in tournaments at that time was weaker.

As far as Davis Cup, I won't speak to that. I don't factor that in to my evaluations, but I've got no objection to you doing so.

Your statement about "channeling intensity" is just strange. Take a look at the numbers I listed before. They are virtually identical for god's sake. If you compare those two numbers with Safin's you'll find that Safin doesn't look anything like Roddick in the patterns of his success. Roddick's not a Safin, he's a Hewitt: Often getting to the quarterfinals, rarely winning.

Well my point with Hewitt reaching the peak of the men's game at such a young age was to say that he was talent wise as good as if not better than Andy Roddick, who was embraced as a phenomenon soon after he defeated Michael Chang at the French Open. Hewitt on the other hand was a virtual unknown even as a youngster until 1998 when he became the youngest to win an ATP tournament.

Regarding the mens' circuit being void of talent during Hewitt's peak, well Roddick didn't peak any later either and arguably 2003 was his best career season when he won his US open and got ranked world #1 and he's also only a year younger than Hewitt so Roddick's inablity to win grandslams doesn't rest solely on Federer's success either.

Secondly in the career accomplishments, his 75 weeks as world #1 was an indication toward his consistency at the top once he got there and 75 weeks is no mean feat, he's no one and done guy who crashes all the tournaments in an year to get the #1 ranking like Marcelo Rios did a while back. Andy Roddick on the other hand has never even been as consistent as Hewitt.

Then not factoring in all the other ATP tournaments that they have won which seems to be pretty close, I'd like to bring up the comparison of their Masters Cup results, which are known to attract the biggest names in tennis, Hewitt has 2 while Roddick has none. Infact Hewitt and Roddick have won the same number of ATP tour events while Hewitt has won 1 more grandslam, 2 masters cup events and 6 masters series events compared to Roddick's 4.

Hewitt has literally been in retirement though he hasn't announced it over the past year and a half or so due to injuries, surgery as well as personal reasons which has to be factored in when you talk of his accomplishments and current ranking.

So my point is that Hewitt cannot be compared talent-wise to a Federer or Nadal but other than those guys in this era and Sampras and Agassi from the previous decade, there aren't too many players during Hewitt's career period who can be proclaimed to be clearly better than him. Safin and Djokovic are better talented but they do not have the accomplishments yet to assert their superiority over him.

[Doctor MJ]

Well my point with Hewitt reaching the peak of the men's game at such a young age was to say that he was talent wise as good as if not better than Andy Roddick, who was embraced as a phenomenon soon after he defeated Michael Chang at the French Open. Hewitt on the other hand was a virtual unknown even as a youngster until 1998 when he became the youngest to win an ATP tournament.

Regarding the mens' circuit being void of talent during Hewitt's peak, well Roddick didn't peak any later either and arguably 2003 was his best career season when he won his US open and got ranked world #1 and he's also only a year younger than Hewitt so Roddick's inablity to win grandslams doesn't rest solely on Federer's success either.

Secondly in the career accomplishments, his 75 weeks as world #1 was an indication toward his consistency at the top once he got there and 75 weeks is no mean feat, he's no one and done guy who crashes all the tournaments in an year to get the #1 ranking like Marcelo Rios did a while back. Andy Roddick on the other hand has never even been as consistent as Hewitt.

Then not factoring in all the other ATP tournaments that they have won which seems to be pretty close, I'd like to bring up the comparison of their Masters Cup results, which are known to attract the biggest names in tennis, Hewitt has 2 while Roddick has none. Infact Hewitt and Roddick have won the same number of ATP tour events while Hewitt has won 1 more grandslam, 2 masters cup events and 6 masters series events compared to Roddick's 4.

Hewitt has literally been in retirement though he hasn't announced it over the past year and a half or so due to injuries, surgery as well as personal reasons which has to be factored in when you talk of his accomplishments and current ranking.

So my point is that Hewitt cannot be compared talent-wise to a Federer or Nadal but other than those guys in this era and Sampras and Agassi from the previous decade, there aren't too many players during Hewitt's career period who can be proclaimed to be clearly better than him. Safin and Djokovic are better talented but they do not have the accomplishments yet to assert their superiority over him.

There's no doubt that Roddick didn't live up to hype while Hewitt did. That's a big part of the reason why I think people think Hewitt was better. But I think it's very wrong to evaluate a player based at all on how he lived up to expectations.

A good point about Roddick's peak not being in the think of Federer's era either. I oversimplified it before. To clarify: Roddick's peak overlapped significantly more with Federer than Hewitt's did, hence bringing up Federer's impact is necessary here.

I disagree with giving Hewitt additional credit for consistency at his peak in an overall accomplishment comparison because after all: His accomplishments during that time are factored into the discussion by definition, why should they be double counted? If you want to say Hewitt had the better peak using that logic I get it. I do think it's worth noting that Roddick's 2003 was superior point wise to either of Hewitt's #1 years, so if you're going to give Hewitt credit for a consistent peak, you're giving a very precise window and evaluating "longer than a year but still short compared to a career".

Regarding specific tournament wins, if you want to say Hewitt's bag of titles is more impressive than Roddick, I don't have a problem. My point was to illustrate how close they were. You made the distinction between Hewitt and Roddick as if Roddick were Safin, and very clearly as I showed, your perception of Roddick was wrong.

I rarely factor in injuries in a situation like this. Doing so essentially rewards a player for having a weak body. The only situation I can think of where I feel otherwise is Monica Seles after the stabbing.

I agree that there aren't many guys who can be proclaimed clearly better than Hewitt. Of this generation, there's Federer and Nadal. Then on the next peg down, you've got the Hewitts and the Roddicks of the world.