By David Wiseman
May 28th 2009 @ 2:24am
Related coverage
Lleyton Hewitt: gaining the respect he deserves
Australia's Lleyton Hewitt reacts after his victory - AP Photo/Srdjan Ilic
He wound back the clock like it was 2002. Winning a match he had no right winning. Lleyton Hewitt survived a massive 55 aces and being two sets to love down to defeat Ivo Karlovic in the opening round of the French Open, and backed this up by defeating Kazakhstan’s Andrey Golubev in three sets. This was how it used to be.
He was like MacGyver – always getting out of ridiculous situations; coming out unscathed regardless of how down and out it appeared he was.
Was this result an aberration? Have we already seen the best and worst of Lleyton Hewitt? Is he destined for life in the commentary box?
What will his legacy be?
Will it be as one of Australia’s most misunderstood athletes?? Like Shane Warne and Greg Norman, will he find that it is preferable to live overseas where people don’t try to get under his skin? It is no coincidence that Hewitt is already very good friends with the Shark. They feel like they have much in common.
People wanted Hewitt to win with humility and dignity. And as he kept on winning, more and more tall poppy syndrome kicked in.
Sadly this has been allowed to overshadow his achievements which are significant.
He is the first Australian since John Newcombe in 1975 to win two different Grand Slam tournaments. He could have won a third but faltered in the 2005 Australian Open final.
Despite everything he has been put through by his countrymen, he is a proud Australian and wanted to win this tournament as badly as someone can want to win something.
It appears as though that loss took something out of him. He hasn’t played in another Grand Slam final since. He hasn’t been as potent since.
He may solider on the tour yet, if his body can hold up. Maybe in the twilight of his career, he can reinvent himself in the same way Jimmy Connors was able to.
Connors though, had a sense of humor and was able to work the crowd. Hewitt just has a single-minded focus and determination on winning. He comes across as being so competitive that he wouldn’t be averse to whipping out The Vicht in a game of Pictionary.
His biggest strength is also his biggest weakness, but that is the case with most of us. Notwithstanding we tend to like our celebrities perfect; it’s the way the system works.
So while people may not like him, they should at least respect him. Australian tennis will be quite the poorer for it when he calls it a day.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(5)
Brett McKay said | May 28th 2009 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
but not enough respect to earn a single comment within half a day of posting David!!
I don’t think anyone begrudges Hewitt’s success, and especially his Davis Cup heroics (and likewise, no-one will ever question his committment to Davis Cup), but the fact remains he will never ever have unanimous support.
His run in Paris is getting him on the backpages again, where he belongs, and should he get past Nadal this week, he’ll go a long way to regaining some of that lost support..
ty said | May 28th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
hewitt is so cool fight on you can do it
Benjamin Conkey said | May 28th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
If he can somehow get passed Nadal the respect will go through the roof. But sadly it won’t happen..And once again Hewitt will be beaten by the eventual champion.
What do I respect about Hewitt? I respect that he speaks his mind (unless it’s of a racist nature), I respect his abilitity to punch above his weight,and I respect his ability to pick up Bec Cartwright!
I was glad he made those comments about the ITF and the Davis Cup. He called it a circus, and that’s exactly what it is.
Who in their right mind would send any sporting team to India at the moment? I was listening to the BBC sportsworld show last Sunday morning, and the correspondent critised Australia for not going to India, saying ‘Australia should consider themselves lucky they only got a small penalty”.. Couldn’t believe it from a BBC journalist.
Anyway back to Hewitt. He will lose tomorrow night, but Wimbledon and the US Open are his grandslams…And I think he can make it to at least the quarters at Wimbledon…and of course he can beat anyone in Davis Cup..he just needs a decent Australian partner in the singles.
LK said | May 28th 2009 @ 6:16pm | Report comment
Great peice David and couldn’t agree with you more in that he is terribly misunderstood. We only see the on court and in the middle of battle. The media have been Hewitt haters since day one. He never had a chance.
I have watched him since he burst onto the tour and have loved every minute. Never was he supposed to do what he did. Everyone wrote him off and he ended up winning two grand slams, youngest ever year-end world number 1 and Davis Cup champion. It has been an honour to watch this guy play.
I think he has a good chance against Nadal. Everytime they have played (bar Beijing) there has been nothing in it. I think Lleyton will surprise a few people tomorrow. His story is not over yet.
Greg Russell said | May 30th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
I’m curious why Benjamin thinks that TA’s stance on the DC in Chennai is the right one.
Personally I’ve seen this one completely the opposite way. Why? Firstly, because tennis and cricket are completely different sports. Tennis is played in a small stadium and involves only a small number of athletes. Thus it is much, much easier to control from a security point of view. It is also a relatively low-interest sport in India (compared with cricket), and so I’d be surprised if it appealed as a political target. Chennai is considered a relatively low-risk part of the country (as opposed to places like Mumbai and Kashmir). The DC tie was a single event, as opposed to the multi-team, multi-venue IPL (i.e., one required thousands and thousands of policemen for security, the other just a handful of well-trained professionals). There is no history of sports events in India being political targets. India is not Pakistan!
As far as I am aware, no international cricket team has ever not gone to India for security reasons – even the English returned a week after the Mumbai bombings last year. So why on earth should TA have been so precious?
I completely agree that LH had the right to withdraw from this tie if he wanted to, and I don’t even think he could have been begrudged it given the years and years of devoted service he has given to Australia’s DC cause. But TA should have just gone ahead without him. Frankly I see this one as yet another example of the appalling lack of leadership and intelligence in TA.
I should add that I fully support the Australian cricket team’s stance in recent times in not touring Pakistan. It’s just that I see this one as being completely different, as explained.
However I am certainly open to hearing logical arguments from the other side …