Originally Posted by RealityRyan
If you watch sports long enough you realize two things; for one, the most gifted player doesn't always win, and two great coaching makes winners.
Roger might have the best raw skills but he can't consistently produce.
At the moment but what will happen if he develops mentally as plenty of players have during their career (Agassi, Lendl)
If Roger plays his “A” game at Wimbledon, then and only then will he beat Roddick. Federer hasn't consistently done that and Roddick is a much-improved player from last year. Don’t expect straight sets again. Andy has grown so much in his shot selection, controlling emotions and net skills.
Yet Federer thrashed Roddick at Houston where the surface favours Roddick over Federer so a fairer assesment would be Roddick needs to play his A game against Federer to compete with him.
Don't be surprised if Roddick still beats Federer's "A" game at Wimbledon. This has do with the second part of this equation; Brad Gilbert. This man, during his pro career was known as the "giant killer' because his game was small but he played so smart he could take down a player with giant game. Brad beat some of the best players on the tour in his day Becker, Chang, Agassi, Jonny Mac, and etc. He also coached Agassi from 100+ in the world to number 1, collecting one grand slam trophy after another along the way. This is Roddick's ace up his sleeve, no pun intended. This is the reason why Roddick will dominate; he has the best coach in the game, even if he is just "winning ugly"....
You make some good points and Roddick would probably dominate if it wasn't for Federer but I believe Federer will stop Roddick dominating in the same way that Sampras stopped Agassi dominating.