Roger Federer vs Lleyton Hewitt 2004 US Open Final Highlights. If you like my highlights please consider making a donation to my paypal www.paypal.me/JOTennisHL really grateful for whatever you can give during these covid hit times.
Of course! His game is Poetry In Motion! I remember McEnroe saying during commentary on a Federer match : " just watch Federer. Don't look anywhere else, just watch Federer. It's very beautiful experience."
I think his backhand cross court coming forward is even better, when he charges it up and then unleashes it across. Also the inside forehand, those are some of my favourites.
I think partly because courts and the balls have changed so the balls bounce much higher than Federer's ideal contact point. There's also the fact that Federer ever since he damaged his back does not really lean much into his shots.
@@s.l5787 The effectiveness of Federer's forehand decreased entirely because he made significant adjustments to his form beginning in early 2007. Compare his swing over time since 2007 to his swing in 2006 and earlier. It looks like an entirely different forehand and did not change for the better.
@@s.l5787 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IIqd2SbU1OE.html You can see how his forehand changes from 2002 to 2008 here. The length of the swing is noticeably shortened, becomes less fluid, and relies more on timing. The result is a reduction in margin for error and power. The change continues from 2008 on. His forehand was significantly more reliable and formidable before 2007.
jwu7688 The most obvious outcome is that Federer’s backswing has become shorter over time. Federer’s hand drops into a lower position earlier, and he keeps the racquet head closer to his body. This means as he continues back behind the body the backswing reduces in size. Larger backswings for example The longer the racquet is accelerating, the faster it is going when it reaches contact. Acceleration while changing direction happens on a curve. Longer backswings allow a smoother stroke path, which means more reliable timing and better biomechanics.
Lleyton Hewitt had a small window in between Pete’s closing out of his career, and Federer/Nadal/Joker dynasty. This match is a clear indication of that window promptly being shut.
You forgot to mention that during that time Kuerten had suffering a lot with injuries. But both Kuerten/Hewitt/Roddick they enjoyed well this suppose window :)
As an Australian, I sadly have to agree. The early 00s was not a strong era at all. Even a prime Andy Murray from 8-12 years later, would've held a clear edge over the likes of a prime Roddick, Hewitt, or Saffin.
To put this match into the context at the time, Lleyton Hewitt had beaten Roger in Davis Cup in Melbourne at the end of 2003 in an epic 5 setter and he had his chances when losing to Roger in the 2004 Australian Open. He got a set off Roger at Winbledon too and had played well in the US hardcourt swing leading up to the US Open, as well as not dropping a set en route to the final. So I had talked myself into thinking that he might be able to challenge Roger as the US Open was on the best surface for Lleyton. Then Roger hit that cracking forehand winner off a standard Lleyton rally ball to start the match and I went to myself "Who are you fuc**** kidding?! He's got no chance!"
You overrate Lleyton. He was a weapon less pusher for the vast majority of his career. Wimbledon was luck he has a lacklustre and sick nalbandian for a final opponent. Us open he had a way past his prime Pete.
Rafayet Rahman Ratul I think people forget how quick Hewitt was in his prime,...these courts were very quick, and he got a lot of balls back in play from the defense.
@@thesoulexpressshow1370 I'm sorry but Djokovic will never be this majestic. He has a simpler easier to execute grinding style that's really effective and hard to beat but not nearly as amazing
Nope he just sweapt the competition ...Hewitt, Phillipousses, Baghdatis.... Once Nadal and Novak have grown up it was over for Roger. His prime was cut by those two guys and that is a fact
@@fraerotNot entirely true. Federer was still able to beat prime Novak frequently even being out of his prime himself. Nadal had a bigger grip on Roger due to his playingstyle, but wasn't as consistent against the rest of the field.
Wrong. In order for this to be true we'd have to say Fed was already over the hill by 27 or 28 years old.... I'm not buying that. He still won majors even in his 30's. Nadal just had Fed's number. And even though Fed was maybe more talented than a young Djokovic, he had a habit of playing too conservative in the big points and tiebreaks against Novak, which is why Novak eventually eclipsed him.
@@davearonheim1582Nobody said Fed was over the hill at 28. But is clear to see that in his early 30s he didn't have this explosiveness and footspeed anymore.
@@SHVideografieyes that's likely true. And if so, that doesn't speak well of today's young players, since Djokovic keeps largely winning against much younger guys despite being 36 years of age.
I’m a huge Fed fan and have followed his career since he won Wimbledon 2003, still can’t believe some people say he played his best tennis after his 30’s. The peak of his powers was at around 2004 to mid 2009 not a coincidence why he won multiple Slams consecutively , his forehand was vicious an absolute hammer of pace,power and precision, the best shot I’ve seen in all my years of following Tennis
His forehand wasn't the same after his mononucleosis bout. He started to incorporate more topspin and never had that "instant death from aynwhere" shot again.
Federer's level from 2004 to 2007 or so was some of the highest level the sport has seen. His forehand was arguably the best shot in tennis in those years. His forehand from about 2008 or so was less explosive. I remember really feeling this way watching the Wimbledon final between him and Nadal in 2008 compared to the 2007 final.
Federer was definitely not in his peak in this match. Possibly peak hunger. Hewitt was playing short, he was playing slow and he was playin to the middle. Those times in this match when he hit a long ball with a higher pace or close to the lines Federer's attacking play could not be implemented. Peak performance is not just about forehand velocity
@@GrivianThis was peak Federer mate. It's not just about the fh. His movement, the clutch serving etc were all on song. He was devastating here and forced a lot of shortballs from Hewitt.
Hewt was a typical Australian. Fiercely competitive during a match, but equally generous with praise for the opponent immediately after it. A great sportsman.
Hewitt had a lot of issues early in his career even with getting fined for ducking press conferences. He also had a few matches where he got into it with opponents or expressed poor sportsmanship such as when he made a racially charged comment at a lines person against James Blake at the USOpen, and the Davis Cup Match against Guillermo Coria, which had a lot of antics. He did get a lot better though as he got older. I always felt that Rafter was the classier of the 2. Then Australia got stuck with Tomic, and Kyrigos who were just new levels of low...
@@GrivianHe was undefeated against top 10 players in 2004, won 3 slams and the WTF. His bh was perhaps not at his best but when it comes to the rest of his game he wws definitely entering prime mode like Nole did in 2011.
@@SHVideografie He started a period of domination. That's a difference between that and peak performance. Also his ELO was way higher in later years and he lost in 3rd round french open
And this is Federer a little bit before his dominant 2005 / 2006 period. He was so good even in 2004...a far cry from his game today in 2020, which isn't bad, but nowhere near this.
Even though he had great success in 2006, he was a more confident more free player in 2004-5. Nadal ruined his confidence and mental toughness. I’ve always believed Nadal dismantled federer. He got in Federer’s head. You gotta remember Hewitt was 7-2 up h2h against Federer in the first 9 matches they played (99-03). This is not that Hewitt!!
One of the greatest performances by Roger. If not THE PERFORMANCE. I don't see how anyone could beat him while playing like this. The quality and variaty of the shotmaking produced was just overwhelming. Hewitt was playing like Hewitt. Very consistent, quick player, solid, with great criteria and fantastic sense of the court. He entered the final without having lost a set. And then he got erased, reduced to a mere spectator. Against Rafa or Novak, the score would have been more even. Simply because Roger was looking for the killing winner practically in every shot, something that Rafa and Novak usually don't do. And he wouldn't miss that night. The match went quickly. The match was embarrasing for Lleyton. Probably the highest level of tennis from a player the world has ever witnessed (there are many other contenders, obviously), that september 12th 2004.
like a fan your comment is invalid. Hewitt was not a strong opponent for roger, like roddick,gonzalez, phillipousis and baghdatis. all weak players in those matches
I'd also add Wawrinka's performance against Djokovic on their RG final. That was the best display of domination and badassery I've seen since the 2008 final.
Roger's greatness, much like Borgs and Mac's...starts with his feet. Ive actually watched a bunch of his matches, where Im just focused on his footwork. Its not easy...and I had to train my eyes to not be distracted. But its possible. Watch how his feet, gets him set up to strike the ball as early as he does....its incrediible.
Yes, 100% agree. Although I think the footwork he had in his prime was really at another level. He probably, naturally, just slowed down once he was approaching his 30s.
I remember watching this when it was played and clapping every single winner from Fed that day. It was a joy to behold and poor Lleyton got absolutely pummeled that day in the most one sided men’s USO final in living memory.
Federer is simply the most technically perfect player of all. He can do everything perfectly. I don't see any weaknesses. For me, the best tennis player ever.
Honestly, I am a Fed fan, but if you want to model technique, I would model my student after Murray or Djoker. Djoker is very technically sound, except his volleys....same for Murray, except his second serve is weaker.
@@springfield03sniper Murray could've saved his body a lot of agony if he had a stronger forehand. He could not open up and strike the winners the Big 3 could or even Wawrinka. His complete reliance on chasing everything down and breaking his body likely didn't allow him to extend his career into his 30s like the other 3 did. His is forehand isn't really anything to write home about either. Incredible neutralizer and scrambler though
Man the US Open court was way faster back then... when it was still all green. The movement of this prime Fed in '04 is way different to what it is now. Although that's understandable at almost 39...
My God. The fact that Roger is still playing at a level where he made a major semifinal... ON ONE LEG... I repeat... ONE LEG... this year, is in the top ten, can beat anyone on any given day, and is the betting favorite every time out unless he's playing Djokovic (or Nadal but just on clay) is absolute insanity. Laughable that people think he should retire. He's not only still playing at a high level, he's beating the best a lot of the time, including Djokovic at the ATP Finals last year. He makes deep runs and is a threat to win every tournament he enters. Still fights his ass off too when he's down. His comebacks vs. Millman and Sandgren in five-set thrillers this year were absolutely epic. Makes me wonder how many lives he's enhanced, how many people he's entertained, how many human beings he's inspired, over his entire career, across the globe? The number has to be astronomical. Incredible stuff.
@Angelous Bacon And Nadal has beaten federer 24 times,so learn to respect others,if you think Dustin brown 2-0 record against rafa makes him superior then there are also the ones who had a winning record against fed but disappeared
@@N.Kishore Nadal also lost to darcis,kyrgios,rosol ,Muller not only with brown .he loses to them in early rounds means he was not at top level.nadal defeated Federer in slams finals means Federer was playing top tennis that's why he get to the finals.even pat rafter is 3-0 vs Federer,theim is 5-2 vs Federer.h2h is imp if players play each other 40 times.nadal is 24-16,it's not 3,4 match h2h it's f*** 40 matches.
1:54 points like these are what keeps Federer a league ahead everyone else, even after retirement. Not matter the records, even someone as great as Djokovic would not be able to hit a rally like that so beautifully.
RF just ripped the ball...clean, powerful driving shots.....Came over BH a lot more back then...in full flight...never has there been a better player of tennis...never
Beautiful performance. Hewiitt was no joke back then but got destroyed by prime Roger. Matches like this were why he was considered the GOAT long before he achieved all the numbers and statistics that back up his GOATness.
Not to take anything away from Fed but Hewitt was giving Fed too many short balls and rarely attacking. That's one of the reasons why Fed looked so invincible when they met after 2004. So, if we, for instance, take Djokovic as an example, not only did the guy rarely give any short balls but he also managed to attack/counter attack. Nole would not allow Roger to get away with the second set like he did here against Lleyton.
Hewitt didn’t play bad, but he simply doesn’t have the power from the baseline to rush or get Federer out of his comfort zone like Nadal and Djokovic do.
@@soheiladam7510 hahaha agree. he can eat anyone for a breakfast. I just can not belive what he pulled off there. That is ridiculous. It is out of this world diference. Nothing you would do he will not have an answer (and an amazing one).
part of the reason is because federer can hit better angles because his reach is longer, he can reach for more balls when hes on the defensive...also hes able to hit more winners off his forehand because he hits flatter....
Hewitt was lucky to win any title. His prime was short lived as he only filled a short gap between the fading of legends such as Pete Sampras and Agassi, and the emergence of the next level goats such as Federer and Nadal.
Such a joy seeing Hewitt being slapped on the face for the third time in the same year in 3 grand slams (Federer in AO, Gaudio in RG, Federer again in USO) 🤗
I always remember Lleyton Hewitt as Michael Chang esque. Both guys moved their feet around on the court around running and moving their feet really quickly almost like cartoon characters. LMFAO!!!☺
No one pushed Federer like Hewitt in his early years. Hewitt doesn’t get enough respect. Absolute monster competition and trust me, Federer knew how amazing Hewitt was heading into this match! Fed played in such a competitive era. Most people would’ve lost to this version of Hewitt!
I am in reviewing the days from young Roger Federer. Roger just not getting enough games after games. Definitely when young Roger hits the ball just so deeply penatrated without fears. Very high quality hits after hits- just no missed, no disappointed from Roger. The served beyond among pro players- ACE(s) mostly... The one hand back hand winners another weapon.
Federer's obviously incredible here, but it's a little presumptuous to say he would destroy prime Djokovic and Nadal simply because he destroyed Hewitt. Tennis is all about match-ups, we know, and Hewitt didn't have the ability to take time away from Federer in the way those guys can; just look at how much time Fed has to wind up on the forehand and backhand, because Hewitt's balls not only land just past the service box but have no speed or weight of shot. Having said that, it's fun to watch these kind of beatdowns from time to time, just to remind yourself how much better the Big 3 are than everyone else this century.
Plus roger's game isn't as nearly developed as in the latter stages of his career, his arsenal is a lot more limited here. If we were to let's say, combine Federer 2006 with his arsenal from let's say 2017 I think there wouldn't be a player alive to challenge him.. You have to take into the consideration that he was really stubborn and didn't change his frame until 2014 lol he was at a huge disadvantages with the 90sq inch head compared to the 100 his opponent's used. I loved these what ifs and hypothetical situations. :)
The game changes here in historical terms. No longer is having the game of a Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero enough to win grand slams or be world no.1. The golden age has begun. The bar has been raised considerably to a height few can even compete at. For years to come, Federer will monopolise the slams on grass and hardcourt, and Nadal on clay, taking tennis (and perhaps sport) to a new level. Their rivalry will become one for the ages.
@@AstroSully "His prime" ended when Nadal and Djokovic grew up. "His prime" was only Rogers prime because he was playing againts Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt and Safin
@@noledjokovic100 roddick and hewitt were both number 1 at one point. so youre point is stupid. he played against them while they were the big 3 of that time until nadal came and then novak.
Classic Swiss maestro in control of every point, moving without the ball, always thinking of the shot ahead, this is why he was untouchable for about 6/7 years. He is the reason Nadal and Djokovic elevated. Anyone who wants to argue he played in a weak league just need to watch matches like these to see how he outclassed great players! Ps. Federer is one of the best front runners ever, once he built a lead he always got a huge head of steam.
Hewitt had no strong shots, he had no power to trouble the top guys as he got into 2004 onwards. His speed and chasing down balls got him the wins early in his career. This lack of power caught up with him very quickly.
I agree but what he lacked in power he made up for in movement. He was still a top player in 05 but injuries killed off his main strength. That said, he indeed lacked the weapons to really trouble Federer even if he had kept his court speed.
Que lastima no se pudo mantener Hewitt, aunque le toco competir contra uno de los mejores de todos los tiempos que fue Federer. El juego de Hewitt, hacia que sea un jugador muy dificil de atacar, y tenia una de las mejores tecnicas de golpe de todo el circuito.
Faster courts which helped his style of play, also completely different backswing from Roger as already mentioned here unfortunately he shortened his swing after the back injury.
@Mr Twister Wimbledon was slowed in 2001 first, but it was rainy so didn't make any difference, and Federer beat Sampras there, so he is a very good fast court player. Wimbledon was again slowed around 2008. ESPN even showed a serve of Federer with similar trajectories and same speed in 2003 and 2008 and there was almost 15mph difference, 49 to 64 or 68 I guess.
@@rishimanda2191 that is fake trajectory,only 1 ball doesn't decide which court is faster of slower .there are different spots on grass which behave differently,grass is not regular surface like hard or clay,Federer is weak era champ
@@rishbahpandey8697 clay court is not regular either. Lot of bad bounces, although certainly less than grass. You might be right about grass...if it was before 2001, with the change of grass components grass are more regular
@v R Fed was 16-18 vs Rafa everywhere but Roland Garros. As I said, he did fine H2H vs Rafa. Rafa is the greatest ever at Roland Garros. Probably number 1 on clay overall. On any other surface, Fed is the favorite. Those H2H matches were largely played more in Rafa's prime vs Fed's. Fed is 23-27 all-time vs Djokovic. As I said, I am a Novak fan overall. However prime for prime, most of those matches probably favor Novak in that area. If you choose to respond to me again, talk to me with a little more respect. I don't want to have to bitchslap you through the computer. The facts and numbers are right there in front of you. You can bitch about them all you want but I don't want to hear your whiny weak opinions.
@v R Obviously he will do not as well vs the other 2 greatest players ever. I just showed you the numbers for Fed vs those 2 players. Cry about it if you want, idgaf.
You're underestimating Hewitt too much. It's not about weapons because he certainly have them he was a former number 1 for a reason but Federer's level, the court spead and that Killer forhand. he suffocat you from both wings. he takes your time away.
The way fed rallies gives his opponent less time to recover because of the pace and angles on his shots. Sometimes he steps forward takes it slightly earlier, hits it deep and far out wide in the court by the time his opponent scrambles to return he’s ready to hit a winner
@@soheiladam7510 heiwtt did not any top ten or top 20 to get in final, federer beat 3 tom ten´s. You can see the unbalance of their aproach games, and the diferent timing at all
@@soheiladam7510 No he is right. Hewitt didn´t have any weapons. His best shot was the passing shot but pretty hard to use when Fed is playing from the baseline and Fed´s groundstrokes are so much better than Hewitt´s plus the serve. Hewitt´s success was based on his court movement. He played a bad match tactically too, he should have stopped hitting to Fed´s forehand, Nadal always knew to avoid doing that.
Roger Federer has won 20 grand slams. - from 2004 till 2010 he has won 16 from his 20 GS. - 2010 Novak and Nadal are not teens anymore and it was Game Over for Roger. He won 4 more from 2010 till 2019 and the rest is history.
It's easy to miss the fact that Hewitt is only 6 months older than Federer. At age 22, Hewitt has 2 grand slam titles and Federer has none. The rest is history.
He was playing with smaller raquet it was all about accuracy. he should've switched to a bigger one way earlier. i don't know why he didn't do that, maybe he liked playing with that type of raquet.
Federer obviously overpowering Hewitt but you can already see the backhand becoming a liability later in Fed's career when his movement wouldn't allow him anymore to get around the backhand so much. His topspin backhand was too slow and too high and heavy hitters like Nadal and Djokovic took advantage of that.
Agree. Only won 3 slams after he turned 32. And those against a mug like Cilic (2 of them LMAO) and an ageing Rafa on hardcourt. He was thoroughly exposed by Rafa and Djokovic after the age of 29 mostly.
I don't care what anyone says this particular federer when he was in his prime and having a day like this he doesn't lose to any player not named rafa nadal on clay as simple as that
