Monday marks 10 years since Lleyton Hewitt relinquished the top ranking in men’s tennis.
Injuries and father time slowed him long ago, but Hewitt’s legendary successor Andre Agassi has recalled how Australia’s baseline warrior “was almost impossible to beat” during his dominant two-year reign.
Now 32, Hewitt enjoyed 75 straight weeks atop the rankings before Agassi bumped him off the summit in April 2003.
Hewitt spent a further five weeks at No.1 until Agassi, then fellow American Andy Roddick and Spaniard Juan Carlos Ferrero had cameos warming the throne for grand slam king Roger Federer, who seized command in early 2004.
A decade on and Hewitt is often harshly remembered as a caretaker No.1 between the Pete Sampras and Federer eras, who occupied the top position for a total of 588 weeks between them.
But not in Agassi’s eyes.
The first question Agassi posed to Darren Cahill after appointing the coach who helped Hewitt become the youngest year-ending men’s No.1 in history was: “How do I beat Lleyton Hewitt?”
“He was the next person to deal with,” Agassi told AAP during his recent promotional visit to Australia.
“When I started working with Darren, Lleyton had gone to No.1 in the world and I wasn’t.
“So I wanted to understand the standard and I knew Darren had worked with him, no question about it.
“But I would have said that had he not worked with him. I needed to know where the game was going and what I needed to do to adjust to it.”
Hewitt’s total of 80 weeks atop the rankings makes him the ninth longest-serving No.1 ever, behind only Federer’s 302 weeks, Sampras (286), Ivan Lendl (270), Jimmy Connors (268), John McEnroe (170), Bjorn Borg (109), Rafael Nadal (102) and Agassi (101).
In addition to thumping Sampras 7-6 (7-4) 6-1 6-1 in the 2001 US Open final – the year before Sampras collected his 14th and last grand slam title at Flushing Meadows with victory over Agassi – Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002 and back-to-back season-ending championships in 2001-02.
“I played Lleyton and I played him at my best,” Agassi said.
“We played eight times and we were 4-4. That guy was rough to beat.
“If you played him wrong, he was virtually impossible to beat.
“If you played him smart, he was still tough to beat.
“He was one of the great movers we’ve ever seen; a defensive player. He had a great transition game. If he got behind in a point, he wasn’t happy just being there. He would move forward to take over.
“So I saw his game as being worthy of No.1 and I would have liked to have seen him play Pete more often.
“He didn’t worry about Pete’s serve. He moved so well that he was actually running down first serves.
“That was different. He brought something else to the equation.”
deanp
Guest
hewitt perhaps fortunate to arrive on the scene at the end of Sampras/Agassi era, but before start Fed era. Still, 75 weeks at number one is not to be sneezed at. Hewitt made up for with tenacity and determination what he lacked in size and power. And as a winner of the usa open and wimbledon he'll have a place in tennis history.
clipper
Guest
At his best Hewitt was very good, but after a couple of years he seemed to lose half a step and lost his confidence a bit after going out in the first round of Wimbledon as the defending champion. It's a great pity he wasn't around in the heyday of Sampras and Agassi, as he would have been able to match it with them, but don't think he would have had the same impact with the very top players today.