by Louise Belcourt
Lleyton Hewitt and Roger Federer battled the heat and their opposition to advance to a much anticipated final in Brisbane.
With temperatures climbing to over 105°F, both Hewitt and Federer were the ones to hold their cool in tense and dramatic semi final wins on Saturday.
Australian Lleyton Hewitt overcame a slow start to grind down world number 17 Kei Nishikori (JPN) 5-7 6-5 6-3. Hewitt, ranked 60 in the world, proved that age and past injury is no barrier when he used his dogged determination and mental prowess to wear down his opponent after losing the first set. Both men struggled with the heat but Hewitt steadied his game and his 24 year old opponent struggled with the conditions handing Hewitt numerous points with uncustomary errors.
“Yeah, it was tough conditions. Really tough to play out there for both of us today. It turned into a mental battle.â€
Hewitt is coming off 4 victories in the tournament including 3 in the last 3 days. Hewitt seems to be improving in every match with his ball striking back to some of his best, sharp returns of serve, and mental toughness of old.
“Obviously you come off a couple months not playing any matches, so just to get that self‑belief and match toughness back and, yeah, to beat quality players match after match. The last three days I’ve had to do it back to back as well. It’s good.
Hewitt relishes the chance to play his long time rival and friend Roger Federer in the final. “Yeah, be good. You want to play against the best players, and obviously Roger and I have a good history and a lot of tough matches in the past in slams and Davis Cups and everything.â€
Roger Federer had a more tense match where he scrapped by with a 6-3 6-7 6-3 win over world number 34 Jeremy Chardy (FR).
Federer, ranked 6 in the world, started the match in impressive form only losing 3 points on serve in the whole set. He seemed on cruise control until the second set where frustration ensued at the pace of serve and punishing groundstrokes the Frenchman was delivering. Chardy showed his talented forehand in the tiebreak where he applied relentless pressure to take the match into a third set.
The third set was much the same as the second but Federer was gifted a break to go up 5-3 with 2 double faults and 2 unforced errors. Federer’s serve never let him down getting him out of numerous break points, and tellingly he closed the match out with 2 aces.
On the tough match Federer commented “Maybe it was good to have a test, you know. Yeah, the good thing was that I was again consistent on my serve. Was a bit tougher on the return, but then Jeremy has a great serve and made it difficult for me for a while there.â€
Federer brushed aside that Brisbane was only used as a warm up for the Australian open stating “I don’t see finals and semis and Brisbane as a warmup tournament for the Australian. I know everybody talks about that, but I can’t stand it when people say that. For me, this tournament is important. I’ll any way have enough time to get ready for the Australian Open..
Federer reflected on his poor form in 2013 and his hopes for 2014 “I’m very happy to be back in the finals, because sometimes it didn’t happen so often last year. So to start off with a final for me is great, and I hope I can keep momentum up throughout the year, not just next week.â€
The match between the former world number ones is tantalizing. Both are 32 years of age, both have been world number one, both (potentially) are nearing the end of their careers with probably the best days behind them. Also these guys are not just competitors but great friends with a lot of mutual respect.
They have a long rivalry playing each other 26 times with Federer leading 18 to 8. Federer commented “My rivalry with him was pretty intense. Never nasty or anything, but just good matches. We’re total opposite from one another the way we play. I play with the one‑handed backhand; he plays his double‑handed. His attitude on court is totally different to mine. I think that’s why it’s always an interesting matchup for both of us.â€
Hewitt lost 15 straight matches to Federer from 2004 Australian Open to 2010 Australian Open. The losing streak was finally broken in Halle 2010 on grass. Federer commented on his dominance at the time “I just think the confidence I had and the amount of then variation I could bring to the court was just difficult for Lleyton. But I always felt like it was just not only my racquet. The moment I dip my level he was going to be there and take it.â€
The last time the two met was in Davis Cup world group playoffs in Australia in 2011 where Federer won 5-7 7-6(5) 6-2 6-3 on grass.
Hewitt is aiming to win a title for the first time since 2010 in Halle were he defeated Federer in the final, and the first title in Australia since 2005 in Sydney.
Federer is coming off a less than impressive (for him) 2013 where he managed to win only 1 title in Halle. Federer will be aiming for his 78th ATP win when he takes on Hewitt at 12:30am (EST) on Sunday.
It will be a tall ask for the Aussie but with a rowdy Australian crowd cheering “oi oi oi†and with true Hewitt grit, I believe there is a chance he can be victorious over one of the greatest tennis player of all time.
Two icons have been arch rivals since teens
Jason Beer · January 6, 2014 at 8:51 am
The weak era revisited: Hewitt vs Federer. The shocker of this loss is that Federer these days seems to be unable to even beat the man who symbolizes one of the weakest eras in the last three decades of tennis. The weakness of this era (2003-2007) is proven by the fact that the top 20 players apart from Federer, did not perform consistently. In addition to that, the top players of those days, Hewitt and Roddick, never won any more majors after their very early 20’s!
There were hardly any top 20 players who reached far in Slams and Masters on a frequent basis. This no-competition field allowed Federer to grab up 12 majors in no time. On clay however, he was very beatable: an ‘over the hill’ Kuerten could kick his butt at RG for example. Grandpa Agassi, with an injured back, could trouble him. Suffice to say how Federer would have performed in an era with Agassi and Sampras in their primes. Well, we basically know how he would have: till age 21 he could not dominate, cause the weak era had not started yet.
And when Nadal and Djoko came of age (and the weak era was finally over), he (although still of prime age) was not undisputed at all, losing to Nadal time and again. Without the Roddick-Hewitt weak era, Federer would have probably won only half of the majors he currently has. Luckily, the GOAT title, wrongly attributed to him as part of a media hype, has been handed over to Nadal now. Yes, it was wrongly handed to Federer already in 2004 (mind you, he had won only two majors back then) and the debate these days is justified: “Maybe we indeed were a bit blinded?” (quote McEnroe). So it is very logical to give it to Rafael Nadal now, who, at age 27 has won already 13 majors in only 36 attempts, which is, indeed better than Federer, even though Nadal has been dealing with real competition from the start, successfully dealing with super talents Djokovic, Murray and the so-called goat – the one who thinks in German and speaks German, but is ashamed to cheer in his mother tongue (or does his marketing manager forbid him to do so?).
Scoop Malinowski · January 6, 2014 at 9:30 am
Jason, I lost enthusiasm to read your post when you mentioned “weak era.” No such animal as a weak era. I think that’s myth, spin and historical revisionism. The reason I favor Hewitt over Mac and Connors is the way he plays. I just can’t see how Mac and Connors applying their games into the modern era with the modern equipment. Slapping and bunting the ball aorund with a wood racquet and T2000 just would not have beaten Hewitt. It’s just hard to envision Mac and Jimbo transmuting their games from the old era to the new one. Each era simply gets better and better. Sampras was suprassed by Federer, then Rafa passed Fed, Djokovic passed Rafa, Rafa passed Djokovic and we’ll see what happens next. Mac and Jimbo were the best of their times but they are prehistoric compared to these modern gladiators. Bow and arrows and spears are not going to win a war against nuclear weapons or Stealth bombers.
Dan Markowitz · January 6, 2014 at 12:13 pm
I’m in agreement with Jason here, the early-2000’s period was very weak. When you have Hewitt playing Nalbandian in the Wimbledon finals, you know you’ve got a weak field. Same thing goes with Roddick facing JC Ferrero in a USO finals. Weak era, you can say every era is strong, but it’s just not the case.
As for Johnny Mac, the guy plays a game that is effective in any era. He takes the ball early, has great feel, moves extremely well and has better volleys than anyone in the game’s history. You put a 22 year old, hungry Johnny Mac out there today, he’s making semis of slams at least. Which is not the case with Hewitt. I’ll repeat, Hewitt hasn’t reached a slam semis since 2005, and that was during, I’ll repeat, a “weak era.”
Andrew Miller · January 6, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Hewitt was a prodigy, he was the best player of that 2001-2002 period, which still had Agassi and Sampras so it wasn’t so weak. Agassi was excellent in every era.
Dominance requires some help. Nadal’s won a lot of French Opens because, basically, no one else is at his level on the clay. So you could say his clay competition has been inferior, resulting in 8 of the 13 slams in Nadal’s trophy cabinet, way more than 50%. You could say the same for Sampras on grass – no one was in his league on that surface, leading to surface dominance.
So I don’t buy the weak era either. Johannson’s 2002 Australian title was the big surprise of the 2000s, but it’s the same level of surprise as an Iva Majoli French Open title . This is sport and anything can happen. That Australian was Safin’s to lose and credit to Johannson for proving that you can’t phone in your slam titles.
To me Roddick should have won more slams and Federer fewer, but a lot of this is because of personal qualities. Federer outworked people. He got his breakthroughs fair and square. Sampras did too – and not unlike Federer he benefitted from the retirements of Edberg and Lendl, who he would no longer have to face in his draw. It’s not like Krajicek and Ivanisevic were light years better than Berdych.
Andrew Miller · January 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I also know McEnroe and Connors would be fine in this era. Connors slam semifinal in 1991 came against strong players and Courier, no slouch, said he knew he had to play a perfect match in his slam semifinal to make sure that Connors didn’t get the crowd support and then take over the match.
The era comparison to me is a weak argument. Each era has their champs and those champs are there for the right reasons unless they are PEDing.
Scoop Malinowski · January 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm
No such thing as a weak era. Nalbandian showed many times he could play the kind of quality tennis that could kill Fed and Nadal. Nalbandian was a great player. You don’t have to win majors to be a great player. Anybody who gets to the final of a major earned it by playing incredible tennis for two weeks.
Scoop Malinowski · January 6, 2014 at 3:46 pm
I just see Hewitt as the superior athlete to Mac and Jimbo, too quick, feisty, explosive, intense. Hewitt moved better and was more of a natural athlete than Mac and Jimbo IMO. But I’m sure Mac and Jimbo would have adjusted to the new modern game and technology. Topping the prime Hewitt is a matter of debate. Hewitt was a phenomenon, to be able to dominate Pete like he did was devastating. And it was not an “old” Pete, Pete was playing well enough to cruise to the final. Don’t give me any more of that weak era nonsense lol
Andrew Miller · January 6, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Sampras is Sampras.
I think Mac and Connors would have been fine. Any champ would look at that challenge and say bring it on.
As for weak slam winners worst has to be Korda. I like Korda but he doped his title. Some French Open winners also had some question marks but let’s be honest even Gaudio won his French. It is the least memorable win in
recent memory. Even Costa’s French vs. Ferrero was more memorable.
If anything Nadal gave clay a higher profile. If I were a big coach today I would tell a player to choose a slam to build their season around. Nadals French goal lines up his dominance every year. So much that he shortchanges Wimbledon.
Scoop Malinowski · January 6, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Andrew, I think people discredit certain major champs because they aren’t very popular or flashy. Costa Gaudio Johansson etc are no less worthy of respect than multi major winners. They did it the hard way. Nothing was given for free. A guy like Albert Costa has absolutely no profile in the USA so many tennis followers don’t give him respect. This makes people like Dan think, Oh it must have been a very weak year that year for a bum one time wonder like Gaudio or Costa to win the major, totally forgetting or discounting the incredible tennis they had to play for the fortnight to actually win a major. Costa Gaudio Moya Johansson Nalbandian Rios should not be short shrifted just because they only won ONE major or ONLY finaled. Ask Vince Spadea how hard it is to get to major final.
Dan Markowitz · January 6, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Yes, they should, Scoop. The guys you named were not great players. In a great era of tennis like the late-70’s only the great players reached slam finals and the same dynamic is true today. You don’t see a player like Raonic or even Wawrinka make a slam finals because they’re not great players. Now wait a few years, and we’ll be in another “weak” era, where guys like Raonic, Dimitrov and Tomic probably win slam titles.
Spadea didn’t reach a slam semis because he wasn’t a player of that level. Same goes for Blake, Fish and Izzie and Q-ball.
Actually, saw Jack Sock handle Mannarino today in Auckland in a way Q-ball could not at the Open last year. I think Sock. He’s fun to watch, beautiful serve, vicious forehand and even saw him chip a beauty of a backhand slice up the line and come into play net. He plays Haas next which should be very interesting. Sock looks like he’s a free spirit with lots of confidence and character. He’s dating Sloane Stephens which shows he’s not afraid of breaking barriers.
Andrew Miller · January 6, 2014 at 10:02 pm
Sock has a way better strategic sense than most U.S. players. Good luck Sock.
I say if you get a slam you’re in rare territory. Tennis is a gladiator sport so you need to hoist the hardware to get into the top echelon of the sport’s history, even if like Rios you’re a lot more important and have far more impact on the sport because players still model some of their game on your techniques.