Jim Courier vs Andy Roddick [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Jim Courier vs Andy Roddick

marcRD
02-12-2010, 03:52 AM
I was just thinking about Roddick's place in tennis history and what he can be compared to when we go back to former american players who were dominated by a great, 1st I thought about Michael Chang but I think Roddick is another animal alltogether, much more ambitous and just mentaly stronger with more longevity. That Wimbledon final against Federer would be unthinkable for Chang against Sampras.

So I jumped to Courier and to start with I must mention that in achievments there is no doubt Courier is much greater but if we take more things into the equations like the opposition they faced they are very similar as they both won their grand slams just before the greats of their respective era started dominating. Courier just was 1 year older than Sampras while Roddick is one year younger than Federer, this gave Courier those free years to win slams between 91-92,

Still here are the numbers between them:

GS QFS: Roddick leads 18-15
GS SFS: Roddick leads 11-10
GS FS: Courier leads 7-5
GS titles: Courier leads 4-1
Titles: Roddick leads 28-23
Weeks as nr1: Courier leads 68-13

H2H against the GOATs:

Courier head to head against Sampras: 4-16
Roddick head to head against Federer: 2-19


Ok, the numbers tell the story of 2 players who often got to the later stages of grand slams but Courier just has that great advantage of slam titles which puts him in a whole different level than Roddick, but if you count in anything else they are very similar in achievments. Both are consistent and often came up short against the great ones of their respective eras. My vote goes for Courier because his diversity was greater and he knew how to play on clay, but Roddicks fighting spirit has really grown into me and he deserves some recognition. Courier had a much better peak but Roddick has been more consistant, Courier got to his first grand slam final 91 and his last slam final 93 while Roddick has been to finals 03,04,05,06,09. Courier was nr1 for 68 weeks but was outside the top 10 at 24 years old and at Roddicks age he was barely in the top 50.

So what I want is your subjective opinion, which one do you think overall has been a better player, counting not only the peak but also longevity. I would specialy like to know the opinion of those who lived to see Courier at his peak because I have mostly seen him from 94-97 and I have only seen clips from 91-93. Was Courier simply more fortunate than Roddick or was he truly as much greater as 4 slams to 1 slam?

Havok
02-12-2010, 04:30 AM
Courrier. No matter what other perks Roddick might have achieved in his career than Jim wasn't able to, 4 Grand Slams far outweighs the one Slam. If Roddick was able to win another Slam or maybe two, then Roddick would walk away the winner but the difference in Slam titles is far too grand.

Honestly, Roddick is extremely underrated in terms of what he achieved during his career being somewhat limited in his tennis abilities. All the focus goes to his sole GS title but everybody overlooks the fact that he hit his stride at the exact same time as one of the greatest as well, which hampered his chances at tallying up more GS trophies. Both Courrier and Roddick were great players, easily HOF worthy.

Kolya
02-12-2010, 04:49 AM
GS - 4 vs 1

Says it all really.

Plus Courier reached the finals of the other 2 GS's he didn't win.

philosophicalarf
02-12-2010, 04:54 AM
Courier burned brighter, but for a much shorter period. Seems to happen to a lot of those who win Roland Garros young.

Action Jackson
02-12-2010, 05:39 AM
Courier easily, made finals in all of the Slams at least once and won 4 of them.

Arkulari
02-12-2010, 05:58 AM
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8927/andycourier2vs.jpg

I'll stick with Courier, he has had a more complete Slam career :)

Mechlan
02-12-2010, 06:12 AM
Courier of course, but this is closer than the 4-1 GS tally indicates.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 07:46 AM
I would say Courier, simply because he was good on every surface, and I value that a great deal. Roddick is not good on clay at all.

However, with that said, I do not think the difference is huge. Roddick is best on fast surfaces (ie Wimbledon and US Open) but has played in the exact era in which the GOAT has dominated those events. It cannot be denied that that has lowered his slam count. In his prime, Courier never really had to deal with a player anywhere near Federer's caliber. I firmly believe that Roddick would be about a 4 time slam winner if Federer just were a normal all time great instead of an uber GOAT

Purple Rainbow
02-12-2010, 08:21 AM
Not a bad comparison.
According to my TMS era ranking thread, Roddick sits just behind Courier and will likely overtake him pronto.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043

Courier is way more accomplished than Roddick on clay and at the AO.
Roddick has a much better record at Wimbledon, the US Open and the hardcourt TMS events.
Roddick has also won more overall titles.

If Roddick had been born 2 years earlier, he'd have had a window of opportunity post-Sampras and pre-Federer to snatch a few more slams and we probably wouldn't have this discussion.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 08:33 AM
Not a bad comparison.
According to my TMS era ranking thread, Roddick sits just behind Courier and will likely overtake him pronto.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89043

Courier is way more accomplished than Roddick on clay and at the AO.
Roddick has a much better record at Wimbledon, the US Open and the hardcourt TMS events.
Roddick has also won more overall titles.

If Roddick had been born 2 years earlier, he'd have had a window of opportunity post-Sampras and pre-Federer to snatch a few more slams and we probably wouldn't have this discussion.

Oh, how I love the fact that that ranking puts Roddick ahead of Boris Becker hahahahaha. Oranges, take note.

And yes, I know it starts at 1990, and so hes not really ahead.

Purple Rainbow
02-12-2010, 08:36 AM
Oh, how I love the fact that that ranking puts Roddick ahead of Boris Becker hahahahaha. Oranges, take note.

Mind you it's post-1990. Obviously Becker is way more accomplished.
Had to draw a line somewhere.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 08:40 AM
Mind you it's post-1990. Obviously Becker is way more accomplished.
Had to draw a line somewhere.

Haha I know that; I was just kidding around

marcRD
02-12-2010, 10:11 AM
I am glad some could see beyond the slam counts, it is not that far between them even if Courier is ahead. I just think Roddick deserves aknowledgement for his consistancy, he has been in the top 10 forever by now and something keeps driving him to stay there. Roddick has prob passed the more talented Safin and the shortlived star which was Hewitt, he doesnt deserve to be labeled a one-hit wonder, he really lost to some great players also in his finals and semifinals.

11 semifinals, lost there 3 times against Federer and once against Hewitt in Australia and in his 4 finals lost them all against Federer. That is to say it is nothing to be ashamed of, Courier on the other hand was another shortlived star but peaked as a bigger sized star than Hewitt before exploding. I really wonder how it feels like to get to 7 finals within 2 years (RG 1991-Wimbledon 1993) and then just never get to another grand slam final and just slowly fade away as the true giant of your era takes over. It was perfect timing by Courier and he made the most of this short space between eras which happened between 91-93, so hats off for him. Personaly I just think he was closer to the level of a Hewitt-Safin-Roddick than a Becker or Edberg despite his slam count telling something else.

rocketassist
02-12-2010, 10:41 AM
Courier. 4 Slams and the final in the two he didn't win.

'If it wasn't for Federer Roddick would have won this and that'

If it wasn't for Sampras, Jim might have won Wimbledon, in the era of fast grass and two stroke points. That would have been an unreal achievement.

marcRD
02-12-2010, 10:45 AM
Courier. 4 Slams and the final in the two he didn't win.

'If it wasn't for Federer Roddick would have won this and that'

If it wasn't for Sampras, Jim might have won Wimbledon, in the era of fast grass and two stroke points. That would have been an unreal achievement.

No he wouldnt, instead Becker would have beaten him in the final (Becker was 6-1 against Courier h2h).

born_on_clay
02-12-2010, 10:47 AM
Courier based on Grand Slam performances

rocketassist
02-12-2010, 10:49 AM
No he wouldnt, instead Becker would have beaten him in the final (Becker was 6-1 against Courier h2h).

I said might, but being in the final there was a fine effort for a baseliner at the time.

thrust
02-12-2010, 02:06 PM
Courrier. No matter what other perks Roddick might have achieved in his career than Jim wasn't able to, 4 Grand Slams far outweighs the one Slam. If Roddick was able to win another Slam or maybe two, then Roddick would walk away the winner but the difference in Slam titles is far too grand.

Honestly, Roddick is extremely underrated in terms of what he achieved during his career being somewhat limited in his tennis abilities. All the focus goes to his sole GS title but everybody overlooks the fact that he hit his stride at the exact same time as one of the greatest as well, which hampered his chances at tallying up more GS trophies. Both Courrier and Roddick were great players, easily HOF worthy.

Courier may be Hall Of Fame worthy, but Roddick should not be. How can a one Slam winnier be considered in the same league as a 6 or more Slam winner? The tennis HOF is a joke! To be in the HOF a player should have at least 4 total Slams on more than one surface. Three on one surface, one on another will do.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 02:21 PM
Purple Rainbow's points system really does bring out a player's consistency at the highest level, though perhaps slam wins should be given more relative weight.

abraxas21
02-12-2010, 02:49 PM
I was just thinking about Roddick's place in tennis history and what he can be compared to when we go back to former american players who were dominated by a great, 1st I thought about Michael Chang but I think Roddick is another animal alltogether, much more ambitous and just mentaly stronger with more longevity. That Wimbledon final against Federer would be unthinkable for Chang against Sampras.

So I jumped to Courier and to start with I must mention that in achievments there is no doubt Courier is much greater but if we take more things into the equations like the opposition they faced they are very similar as they both won their grand slams just before the greats of their respective era started dominating. Courier just was 1 year older than Sampras while Roddick is one year younger than Federer, this gave Courier those free years to win slams between 91-92,

Still here are the numbers between them:

GS QFS: Roddick leads 18-15
GS SFS: Roddick leads 11-10
GS FS: Courier leads 7-5
GS titles: Courier leads 4-1
Titles: Roddick leads 28-23
Weeks as nr1: Courier leads 68-13

H2H against the GOATs:

Courier head to head against Sampras: 4-16
Roddick head to head against Federer: 2-19


Ok, the numbers tell the story of 2 players who often got to the later stages of grand slams but Courier just has that great advantage of slam titles which puts him in a whole different level than Roddick, but if you count in anything else they are very similar in achievments. Both are consistent and often came up short against the great ones of their respective eras. My vote goes for Courier because his diversity was greater and he knew how to play on clay, but Roddicks fighting spirit has really grown into me and he deserves some recognition. Courier had a much better peak but Roddick has been more consistant, Courier got to his first grand slam final 91 and his last slam final 93 while Roddick has been to finals 03,04,05,06,09. Courier was nr1 for 68 weeks but was outside the top 10 at 24 years old and at Roddicks age he was barely in the top 50.

So what I want is your subjective opinion, which one do you think overall has been a better player, counting not only the peak but also longevity. I would specialy like to know the opinion of those who lived to see Courier at his peak because I have mostly seen him from 94-97 and I have only seen clips from 91-93. Was Courier simply more fortunate than Roddick or was he truly as much greater as 4 slams to 1 slam?

I fail to see the similarities... It seems that Courier achieved more than Roddick in most accounts: number of GS and number of weeks at number 1 being the most important perhaps.
It's true that Roddick has been more consistent but he's failed to win the really big matches...

Also, while both players don't have good records against the best of their times, it is fair to say that Courier fares considerably better than Roddick given that he won 25% of his matches vs Sampras while Roddick has won about 10,5% of his matches vs Fed.

Persimmon
02-12-2010, 02:58 PM
Courier won 4 slams and reached the finals of all 4 slams. No contest.

philosophicalarf
02-12-2010, 02:58 PM
Also, while both players don't have good records against the best of their times, it is fair to say that Courier fares considerably better than Roddick given that he won 25% of his matches vs Sampras while Roddick has won about 10,5% of his matches vs Fed.

Two of Courier's wins against Sampras were on clay though, and the other two (inevitably) in 91/92 - certainly imo in 91 Sampras wasn't yet fully formed, and even in their 92 meeting Sampras still hadn't won his 2nd slam.

Although they were only a year apart in age, they almost had different mini-eras. Courier 91-93, Sampras mainly 93-97 (or 93-2000 on grass, although the quality of opposition really fell off hard after about 95).

abraxas21
02-12-2010, 03:02 PM
Two of Courier's wins against Sampras were on clay though, and the other two (inevitably) in 91/92 - certainly imo in 91 Sampras wasn't yet fully formed, and even in their 92 meeting Sampras still hadn't won his 2nd slam.

maybe but that's beyond the point of achievements which I was trying to make. I'm not saying that Courier was a better player than Roddick but simply stating that his achievements were much bigger and the numbers are there to back it up.

marcRD
02-12-2010, 03:05 PM
I fail to see the similarities... It seems that Courier achieved more than Roddick in most accounts: number of GS and number of weeks at number 1 being the most important perhaps.
It's true that Roddick has been more consistent but he's failed to win the really big matches...

Also, while both players don't have good records against the best of their times, it is fair to say that Courier fares considerably better than Roddick given that he won 25% of his matches vs Sampras while Roddick has won about 10,5% of his matches vs Fed.

Outside clay it is 2-15 against Sampras, so it is very similar. As I said there is no doubt Courier achieved more, but Courier peaked 2 years before Sampras while Roddick peaked at the same time as Federer did, so I would say Courier has been fortunate in many ways to have his own mini-era.

partygirl
02-12-2010, 03:19 PM
Grand slams, grand slams, grand slams.
If that was all that mattered in Tennis these would be the only tournaments.

TheBoiledEgg
02-12-2010, 03:19 PM
Courier actually WON 4 slams as opposed to one given to him on a silver plate by the USTA

River
02-12-2010, 04:03 PM
Courier actually WON 4 slams as opposed to one given to him on a silver plate by the USTA

I would have agreed that Roddick got away with one. But considering his perfomance since his 2003 win, with every heartbreaking loss he's gotten in Grand Slams, I honestly think Roddick has paid his dues for that GS win, if he had any dues to begin with. There's no doubt in my head that he is a Grand Slam winner and is/was capable of winning a Grand Slam or two.

Right now, Courier gets my vote. While I hate comparing GS stats, it's pretty much the only factor I see that puts Jim in front of Andy right now. Had Andy won one more, then it would be a different story. But hey, reaching the finals of every GS is a real incredible feat.

abraxas21
02-12-2010, 05:12 PM
Outside clay it is 2-15 against Sampras, so it is very similar. As I said there is no doubt Courier achieved more, but Courier peaked 2 years before Sampras while Roddick peaked at the same time as Federer did, so I would say Courier has been fortunate in many ways to have his own mini-era.

Granted, I see your point. However, the thread was a bit confusing given the large number of Courier achievements which were disproportionally better than Roddick's. Thus, in terms of achievements, there's not much to compare with much analysis, imo, except to conclude that Courier was greater. If you're trying to say that Courier was perhaps not such a good player (when compared to Roddick) as his record shows or that he wouldn't have fared that well in today's era or some other era, then that's were subjectivity and analyis count.

Personally speaking, I didn't see Courier play so I wouldn't really be in a position to comment.

SetSampras
02-12-2010, 06:25 PM
Jim courier based on EVERYTHING. No comparison. Courier is the superior player of the two

SetSampras
02-12-2010, 06:26 PM
Two of Courier's wins against Sampras were on clay though, and the other two (inevitably) in 91/92 - certainly imo in 91 Sampras wasn't yet fully formed, and even in their 92 meeting Sampras still hadn't won his 2nd slam.

Although they were only a year apart in age, they almost had different mini-eras. Courier 91-93, Sampras mainly 93-97 (or 93-2000 on grass, although the quality of opposition really fell off hard after about 95).



Roddick would be lucky achieve even a fraction of what Courier did in the early to mid 90s. How is this even a question or comparison? How can anyone compare Courier to Roddick. The only thing Roddick probably has is consistency throughout the course of a longer period of time yet out of all that time has only managed one slam. So in reality, hes been more of a less consistent top player but a consistent failure at the dance

Vida
02-12-2010, 06:35 PM
there is no question in my mind, that Roddick is much cooler bloke than Courier. really, no comparison.

Dougie
02-12-2010, 06:35 PM
Jim courier based on EVERYTHING. No comparison. Courier is the superior player of the two

Courier gets my vote, but like someone already said, itīs closer than the numbers suggest. 4 GSīs is far better than one, but Roddick has been more consistent, and even improved in the latter stages of his career. If Courier of 93-94 played against current Roddick, I feel tempted to say Andy would beat Jim, but thatīs hardly worth discussing.

SetSampras
02-12-2010, 06:38 PM
Courier gets my vote, but like someone already said, itīs closer than the numbers suggest. 4 GSīs is far better than one, but Roddick has been more consistent, and even improved in the latter stages of his career. If Courier of 93-94 played against current Roddick, I feel tempted to say Andy would beat Jim, but thatīs hardly worth discussing.

Consistent at what though? Losing? To the fact that Roddick has been consistent at the top for so many years with only slam to show for himself shows to me that he isnt as good everyone says he is. Heck Hewitt had one of the shortest primes of any player and most still think hes superior to Roddick who has had double the longevity at the top than Hewitt. I'll take short term domination or at least short term big time results and 4 slams over a consistent career in the top 10 with 1 slam to show for myself. Roddick would never beat Courier on clay prime, passed prime, or peak. Hardcourts you may be right. But at the end of the day, Courier has accomplished more, had more talent, and was the superior overrall player to Roddick. Im not even sure how this is in question

Dougie
02-12-2010, 06:59 PM
Consistent at what though? Losing? To the fact that Roddick has been consistent at the top for so many years with only slam to show for himself shows to me that he isnt as good everyone says he is. Heck Hewitt had one of the shortest primes of any player and most still think hes superior to Roddick who has had double the longevity at the top than Hewitt. I'll take short term domination or at least short term big time results and 4 slams over a consistent career in the top 10 with 1 slam to show for myself. Roddick would never beat Courier on clay prime, passed prime, or peak. Hardcourts you may be right. But at the end of the day, Courier has accomplished more, had more talent, and was the superior overrall player to Roddick. Im not even sure how this is in question

If you actully red my previous post ( the whole three lines) I said Courier, in my opinion, is the superior of the two. All I said was that itīs not as clear as the numbers indicate. Roddick has kept improving, and we may still see something big from him. Heīs had tough opposition and yet heīs hung in there and worked hard at his game, so give him some credit. Itīs not fair to compare him with someone whoīs quit a long time ago.

LoveFifteen
02-12-2010, 07:02 PM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, honey! :shrug:

It's Courier.

SetSampras
02-12-2010, 07:06 PM
If you actully red my previous post ( the whole three lines) I said Courier, in my opinion, is the superior of the two. All I said was that itīs not as clear as the numbers indicate. Roddick has kept improving, and we may still see something big from him. Heīs had tough opposition and yet heīs hung in there and worked hard at his game, so give him some credit. Itīs not fair to compare him with someone whoīs quit a long time ago.

I give Roddick credit. He isnt the most naturally gifted player in the world. He is a player who maximized his talents despite not being really great any aspect outside of his serve. So hes done alright for what he had and showed fight and heart. I think it should be fair to compare with Courier though. why not? If you watched both players play its evident who the superior player was isnt it?:confused: And there is only one era difference between them. Its not as though Courier played with Budge, Kramer, and Tilden for god sakes.


At the end of the day, Roddick just wasnt good enough to accomplish more than he has. If he was he would have. He had his chances against Federer at a couple of slams. I hate this whole Bullshit scapegoat of "ohh poor Roddick, Federer took so much from him". Where does blame fall on Roddick? Where does blame fall on him for abandoning the coach that brough him the most success? For not improving his return game especially return of serve? For throwing so many big match points away? I mean... blame has to fall sometime on a player.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 07:07 PM
Consistent at what though? Losing? To the fact that Roddick has been consistent at the top for so many years with only slam to show for himself shows to me that he isnt as good everyone says he is. Heck Hewitt had one of the shortest primes of any player and most still think hes superior to Roddick who has had double the longevity at the top than Hewitt. I'll take short term domination or at least short term big time results and 4 slams over a consistent career in the top 10 with 1 slam to show for myself. Roddick would never beat Courier on clay prime, passed prime, or peak. Hardcourts you may be right. But at the end of the day, Courier has accomplished more, had more talent, and was the superior overrall player to Roddick. Im not even sure how this is in question

Roddick's best slams are the US Open and Wimbledon, since he is best on fast courts. Roger Federer may be the greatest of all time at the US Open and Wimbledon (dont take this as an invitation to argue that Sampras was better at Wimbledon. I used the word "may" for a reason). He also matches up extremely well against Roddick. Lastly, Federer and Roddick have had their prime in the exact same years. Thus, Roddick's chances of winning slams have gone WAY down due entirely to the presence of one player. He is better than a 1 slam player. Hell, the guy holds serve a greater percent of the time than your beloved Sampras did, and Sampras was a god at holding serve.

DartMarcus
02-12-2010, 07:20 PM
Unfortunately Courier.

Dougie
02-12-2010, 07:25 PM
I give Roddick credit. He isnt the most naturally gifted player in the world. He is a player who maximized his talents despite not being really great any aspect outside of his serve. So hes done alright for what he had and showed fight and heart. I think it should be fair to compare with Courier though. why not? If you watched both players play its evident who the superior player was isnt it?:confused: And there is only one era difference between them. Its not as though Courier played with Budge, Kramer, and Tilden for god sakes.


At the end of the day, Roddick just wasnt good enough to accomplish more than he has. If he was he would have. He had his chances against Federer at a couple of slams. I hate this whole Bullshit scapegoat of "ohh poor Roddick, Federer took so much from him". Where does blame fall on Roddick? Where does blame fall on him for abandoning the coach that brough him the most success? For not improving his return game especially return of serve? For throwing so many big match points away? I mean... blame has to fall sometime on a player.

As far as talent goes, Courier wasnīt that talented himself, hard worker who reached his prime with Higueras teaching him a thing or two about how to use the court...

As for the point itself, if Sampras would have been as dominat on all surfaces as Federer, and if the prime Borg would have been playing in the early 90īs (like NAdal has been for Roddick the last few years), itīs quite possible we would be talking about Courier who only won one slam. Granted, comparing eras like this is pointless, but itīs obvious Roddickīs been kind of unlucky in this sense.

If you think about the match-up, if they would be in their prime now and played against each other in all 4 GSīs, RG is the only one Iīd see Courier winning.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 07:29 PM
If you think about the match-up, if they would be in their prime now and played against each other in all 4 GSīs, RG is the only one Iīd see Courier winning.

That is an interesting way to think about it.

I would probably disagree though. I think Courier would win the Australian Open against Roddick. The Australian Open is a tad too slow for Roddick to excel, and the heat that is frequently so prevalent hurts Roddick as his conditioning is sometimes a bit off (granted, his conditioning can also be quite good, so this wouldnt always be an issue, I suppose)

But certainly, Roddick would win in Wimbledon or the US Open against Courier.

2003
02-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Dick Rod simply because he will make a better commentator.

I'm SICK to death of listening to Bim Sewer reir's condesending garbage post match interviews. Bring on Roddicks!

gorgo1986
02-12-2010, 09:19 PM
Its funny how people in this thread talk about Jim Courier's head to head against Sampras but do no mention some of his other notable head to head records against players of his generation.

for example,.

Jim Courier leads Stefan Edberg 6-4
Jim Courier leads Andre Agassi 7-5
Jim Courier leads Sergi Bruguera 5-2
Jim Courier leads Goran Ivanisevic 8-2
Jim Courier leads Thomas Muster 7-5
Jim Courier leads Richard Krajicek 6-1
Jim Courier leads Todd Martin 6-1
Jim Courier leads Petr Korda 3-1
Jim Courier leads Cédric Pioline 5-3
Jim Courier leads John McEnroe 2-1 (Deceptive as John was a lot older and not at his best)
Jim Courier leads Jimmy Connors 3-0 (Connors was not in his prime)
Jim Courier leads Carlos Moya 2-1
Jim Courier leads Wayne Ferreira 9-2
Jim Courier leads Thomas Enqvist 6-2
Jim Courier leads Greg Rusedski 4-0
Jim Courier leads Tim Henman 3-1
Jim Courier tied with Michael Chang 12-12

So Jim actually had a great head to head record VS some of the all time greats like Agassi and Edberg.

You mention that Boris Becker led Jim Courier 6-1 but you don't mention that all of Becker's wins came on Carpet which was Jim Courier's worst surface. They never played on Grass or Clay, the two times they played on Hard court one was a straight set victory for Courier and the other was a retirement after being up.

And while Pete Sampras does lead 16-4 against Courier, I have to say there matches where never as one sided as Federer and Roddick's. In fact twice in the quarterfinals of a slam, Courier led Sampras 2-0 sets before Sampras came back and won it in 5.

Also I would like to point out that Jim Courier had 5 Masters Series titles to Andy Roddick's 4.
Jim Courier made the ATP Tour Championships Finals twice while Andy Roddick never reached the Finals.

Jim Courier stands alone as the Simultaneous holder of consecutive Australian and French Open titles

IMO while I really like Andy and appreciate him as a player, he is nowhere near Jim Courier.

Jim Courier has 3 more Grand Slams, 2 more Grand Slam Finals, Jim has made the Finals of all four Slams while Andy has never made the Finals of The Australian and he has never made it past the 4th round of Roland Garros, Jim Courier has more Master Series Titles, Jim Courier has spent 55 weeks longer at the number 1 spot., Jim Courier had a better head to head VS the top players. Jim Courier basically excels Andy in every category besides consistency over a longer period of time.

Jim Courier was an all court player, at his best he could beat anyone. He is the better player with the better career, this is no contest. Anyone who says otherwise knows nothing about tennis or is a hardcore Andy Roddick fan-boy.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 09:47 PM
Jim Courier stands alone as the Simultaneous holder of consecutive Australian and French Open titles

...Federer currently holds the Australian Open and French Open titles. Not consecutive, I suppose, but does that really matter? One could come up with all sorts of silly achievements that a player is the only person to do if you decide to limit the criteria so much.

Also, this is even more silly given that a player like Borg would have almost surely done this too at some point if the Australian Open was a big deal back then.

Matt01
02-12-2010, 10:09 PM
Who would you say is the greatest tennis player?



I don't know who the greatest tennis player is but Courier is a much better one than Roddick, that's for sure. He was playing in a whole different universe than Roddick. :o

gorgo1986
02-12-2010, 10:11 PM
...Federer currently holds the Australian Open and French Open titles. Not consecutive, I suppose, but does that really matter? One could come up with all sorts of silly achievements that a player is the only person to do if you decide to limit the criteria so much.

Also, this is even more silly given that a player like Borg would have almost surely done this too at some point if the Australian Open was a big deal back then.

Umgh of coarse it matters its a great statistic, its a good achievement for Jim Courier and shows just how good he was from 91-93. I doubt its a silly statistic for Jim Courier or the loads of players who could only dream to do that, let alone win a slam.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 10:15 PM
Umgh of coarse it matters its a great statistic, its a good achievement for Jim Courier and shows just how good he was from 91-93. I doubt its a silly statistic for Jim Courier or the loads of players who could only dream to do that, let alone win a slam.

You misunderstood. What I meant is that Roger Federer has also held the Australian Open and French Open titles at the same time. Thus, Courier is only the only one to do it if you say it HAS to be done consecutively. And when you start making limits like that, it starts to get silly. Fact is, Federer has held both at once, and so has Courier. It's a great achievement, but Courier isnt the only one to do it.

rocketassist
02-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Current Roddick would not beat Courier on most surfaces and matches, but 2003-05 Roddick would beat him on grass and hard courts IMO.

gorgo1986
02-12-2010, 10:25 PM
You misunderstood. What I meant is that Roger Federer has also held the Australian Open and French Open titles at the same time. Thus, Courier is only the only one to do it if you say it HAS to be done consecutively. And when you start making limits like that, it starts to get silly. Fact is, Federer has held both at once, and so has Courier. It's a great achievement, but Courier isnt the only one to do it.

Umgh Federer never did it(won Australian and Roland Garros) in the same year or consecutively two years in a row. ;)

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 10:27 PM
You misunderstood. What I meant is that Roger Federer has also held the Australian Open and French Open titles at the same time. Thus, Courier is only the only one to do it if you say it HAS to be done consecutively. And when you start making limits like that, it starts to get silly. Fact is, Federer has held both at once, and so has Courier. It's a great achievement, but Courier isnt the only one to do it.

Even Nadull's done it. ;)

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 10:41 PM
Umgh Federer never did it(won Australian and Roland Garros) in the same year or consecutively two years in a row. ;)

But that's a silly distinction. Federer has held both titles at once. In fact, he CURRENTLY holds both titles at once. Nadal has held both titles at once. Does it being consecutive really make it different than someone who did it non-consecutively but still held the titles simultaneously? I really dont think so. And when you start creating achievements that are based on silly limitations like that it has to be consecutively won not just held at the same time, you are just creating a silly achievement just for the sake of having that player have achieved something big.

gorgo1986
02-12-2010, 11:27 PM
Your still not getting it, neither Nadal or Federer won the Aussie and French in the same year. Federer won the French last year and this year he won the Australian, it was not the same year. Jim Courier won them in the same calendar year. It might not be the that important or significant to you but its still a great stat, I do not understand why you care so much. :)

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 11:38 PM
Your still not getting it, neither Nadal or Federer won the Aussie and French in the same year. Federer won the French last year and this year he won the Australian, it was not the same year. Jim Courier won them in the same calendar year. It might not be the that important or significant to you but its still a great stat, I do not understand why you care so much. :)

Again, it being in a calendar year is mostly irrelevant. It is like saying that a calendar grand slam is way better than winning 4 in a row in a different order. It's not.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 11:48 PM
Yes, but I guess it's also the consecutive thing. 23 slam semis in a row IS more impressive than 23 slam semis overall.

luie
02-12-2010, 11:48 PM
Courier ,he was an American who did something his peer samprass couldn't do get to the finals of all 4 GS.

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 12:32 AM
Yes, but I guess it's also the consecutive thing. 23 slam semis in a row IS more impressive than 23 slam semis overall.

No I realize that, but this isnt really analogous to that. I am not saying that having an Australian and French title in ones career is equal to doing it consecutively. I am saying that I really see no difference between holding both titles at the same time and getting them consecutively. In both cases, the player has won the Australian Open and French Open in the span of a year.

Mechlan
02-13-2010, 12:40 AM
No I realize that, but this isnt really analogous to that. I am not saying that having an Australian and French title in ones career is equal to doing it consecutively. I am saying that I really see no difference between holding both titles at the same time and getting them consecutively. In both cases, the player has won the Australian Open and French Open in the span of a year.

This depends on context. For example, IMO, winning RG and Wimbledon consecutively is more impressive than simply holding both at the same time.

jcempire
02-13-2010, 03:06 AM
Is this a question? are you kidding me?
Couier is way better

jcempire
02-13-2010, 03:06 AM
Courier ,he was an American who did something his peer samprass couldn't do get to the finals of all 4 GS.

you got the answer............

ChinoRios4Ever
02-13-2010, 03:11 AM
Jim Courier :worship:

Sophocles
02-13-2010, 03:24 AM
This depends on context. For example, IMO, winning RG and Wimbledon consecutively is more impressive than simply holding both at the same time.

Definitely, because that's just so hard to do. It's more marginal with the A.O. & the French, but I think winning any 2 slams consecutively is a bit more impressive than winning them both in the same 12-month period. Though maybe that doesn't apply in the case of the A.O. & U.S.O. The point is probably about seasons.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 04:40 AM
Roddick's best slams are the US Open and Wimbledon, since he is best on fast courts. Roger Federer may be the greatest of all time at the US Open and Wimbledon (dont take this as an invitation to argue that Sampras was better at Wimbledon. I used the word "may" for a reason). He also matches up extremely well against Roddick. Lastly, Federer and Roddick have had their prime in the exact same years. Thus, Roddick's chances of winning slams have gone WAY down due entirely to the presence of one player. He is better than a 1 slam player. Hell, the guy holds serve a greater percent of the time than your beloved Sampras did, and Sampras was a god at holding serve.

As I said.. Roddick was only great one aspect as you pointed out as well indirectly I guess. You break through Roddick's serve and... what do you have? He isnt deadly enough from the baseline, his net game is attrocious. His movement around the net is like watching someone move in quicksand. Its obvious to see why Fed has a 19-2 h2h vs Roddick. Fed had the ability to break through Roddick's serve with ease since he could read it and react to it. Sampras' serve was actually tougher to read and had a much better placements than Roddick regardless if Roddick can serve 150 mph or not. But Fed's main reason for dominating is what Roddick lack OUTSIDE the serve. He has nothing effective to fall back on.. Never did. Thus why he hasnt seen much success. No point of even comparing Sampras to Roddick. Sampras could move 100 times better, better more penetrating shots, could play at the net, had the more potent unreadable serve.

As for for Fed may be the greatest at USO and wimbledon yea yea.... You have your opinions as do I have mine. I dont have to believe Fed is the best because of what he has accomplished against the field in this era. I digress on that discussion. We're talking about Courier vs. Roddick here

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 04:46 AM
As far as talent goes, Courier wasnīt that talented himself, hard worker who reached his prime with Higueras teaching him a thing or two about how to use the court...

As for the point itself, if Sampras would have been as dominat on all surfaces as Federer, and if the prime Borg would have been playing in the early 90īs (like NAdal has been for Roddick the last few years), itīs quite possible we would be talking about Courier who only won one slam. Granted, comparing eras like this is pointless, but itīs obvious Roddickīs been kind of unlucky in this sense.

If you think about the match-up, if they would be in their prime now and played against each other in all 4 GSīs, RG is the only one Iīd see Courier winning.



See people think I ALWAYS bring Sampras on every topic when this is proof that this poster as well as another brought up Pete when I was talking about Courier and Roddick. We can go with hypotheticals forever. I can play the hypothetical game with the best of them.. If.. Nadal played in the 90s he would be glorified dirtballer only to dominate on clay and nothing more due to the conditons on both surfaces and lack of racket technology. Roddick would be destroyed every year by Sampras at Wimbledon and the USO every time they met. Borg would destroy Federer on clay every time. Borg would destroy Roddick on clay and grass and every time. Federerer wouldnt be as dominant and half maybe half the slams he does now if he had to deal with Sampras his entire career. It never ends. :(


Courier is a better overrall player than Roddick. How is this even in question? And how are people still arguing and debating this? How in the hell am I still still arguing about this. LOL


Watch Courier in his prime and watch Roddick.. i think its easy to grasp who the better player really was overrall. Its not like we are comparing Tilden to Nadal and comparing the 20s era to the 00's. I think Courier would have managed a much nicer and less lopsided h2h vs Federer than Roddick has thats for sure. Fed wouldnt want any part of Courier at his peak on clay and Courier had the ability to give major problems at the AO. Look at what he did to Agassi. Yet Roddick went 2-5 or something against a broken down crippled Agassi in his 30s. That shows Courier had the ability to hang from the baseline and deal with the big time returners. Roddick doesnt

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 07:37 AM
As I said.. Roddick was only great one aspect as you pointed out as well indirectly I guess. You break through Roddick's serve and... what do you have? He isnt deadly enough from the baseline, his net game is attrocious. His movement around the net is like watching someone move in quicksand. Its obvious to see why Fed has a 19-2 h2h vs Roddick. Fed had the ability to break through Roddick's serve with ease since he could read it and react to it. Sampras' serve was actually tougher to read and had a much better placements than Roddick regardless if Roddick can serve 150 mph or not. But Fed's main reason for dominating is what Roddick lack OUTSIDE the serve. He has nothing effective to fall back on.. Never did. Thus why he hasnt seen much success. No point of even comparing Sampras to Roddick. Sampras could move 100 times better, better more penetrating shots, could play at the net, had the more potent unreadable serve.

As for for Fed may be the greatest at USO and wimbledon yea yea.... You have your opinions as do I have mine. I dont have to believe Fed is the best because of what he has accomplished against the field in this era. I digress on that discussion. We're talking about Courier vs. Roddick here

Roddick's forehand is also extremely good. He is not as aggressive with it now as he used to be, but it has always been incredibly good.

Roddick is a player with an all time great serve, an extremely good forehand, a backhand that isn't really inconsistent but which he can't hit winners with. He has a bad net game (though it has gotten better) and only okay return of serve and above average movement. That is Roddick in a nutshell. You can talk all you want about Sampras moving better and having more penetrating shots, and of course, you are right. Sampras is better than Roddick. But the fact is that Roddick holds serve more than Sampras did despite all that. This clearly indicates that Roddick's serve is actually MORE dominant than Sampras' was, which is astonishing because we all know how great a serve Sampras had. If I had to guess how this happened, I would say it is because Roddick's first serve % is extremely high, whereas Sampras' was normal. Both have great second serves too, but first serves will always be far more effective.

And you can say that Roddick is a shell of a player if his serve is figured out. That is true, in that his serve is his greatest weapon. Neutralize any player's greatest weapon and they don't look that great. But the fact is that virtually no one can neutralize his serve. Only Federer seems to be able to do it consistently, and even Federer frequently can't read it. Just look at the 2009 Wimbledon where Roddick held serve against Federer something like 34 times in a row before he was finally broken. Federer was completely lost on how to read Roddick's serve. The only reason Federer was able to win that match was because he himself served better than he has ever served in any match of his life.

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 07:47 AM
Roddick would be destroyed every year by Sampras at Wimbledon and the USO every time they met.

Sampras wasnt nearly as consistent as Federer at the US Open. They both have won 5, but Sampras did it over a 13 year span, while Federer won 5 in a row. Thus, Roddick would have more chances at the US Open playing in Sampras' era than Federer's.

I tend to agree about Wimbledon as Sampras did dominate in a condensed period of time there. However, Roddick is EXTREMELY good on grass. Part of the reason he hasn't beaten Federer there is because he matches up badly against Federer individually. Federer loves playing opponents with big serves and powerful groundstrokes. His return of serve is suffering with age, hence his loss to Del Potro last year, but in the past, Roddick is exactly the type of player Federer most excels against. So Roddick really has no chance. I'm not sure how the matchup would have gone between Sampras and Roddick because I don't think Roddick matches up quite so badly against Sampras. Because of that, he MIGHT have been able to manage a win against Sampras there IMO. This isn't a knock on Sampras at all. I just see Roddick as a VERY VERY VERY good grass court player who only even loses to Federer every time on grass because of the matchup problems.

Watch Courier in his prime and watch Roddick.. i think its easy to grasp who the better player really was overrall. Its not like we are comparing Tilden to Nadal and comparing the 20s era to the 00's. I think Courier would have managed a much nicer and less lopsided h2h vs Federer than Roddick has thats for sure. Fed wouldnt want any part of Courier at his peak on clay and Courier had the ability to give major problems at the AO.

Do you think you're saying something profound? Of course Courier would have a better record against Federer than Roddick. Roddick's best surfaces are Federer's best, whereas Courier's best surfaces are Federer's worst. Thus, Roddick has no matches in which he has a built in advantage in surface, whereas Courier would.

serveandvolley80
02-13-2010, 07:50 AM
Roddick's forehand is also extremely good. He is not as aggressive with it now as he used to be, but it has always been incredibly good.

Roddick is a player with an all time great serve, an extremely good forehand, a backhand that isn't really inconsistent but which he can't hit winners with. He has a bad net game (though it has gotten better) and only okay return of serve and above average movement. That is Roddick in a nutshell. You can talk all you want about Sampras moving better and having more penetrating shots, and of course, you are right. Sampras is better than Roddick. But the fact is that Roddick holds serve more than Sampras did despite all that. This clearly indicates that Roddick's serve is actually MORE dominant than Sampras' was, which is astonishing because we all know how great a serve Sampras had. If I had to guess how this happened, I would say it is because Roddick's first serve % is extremely high, whereas Sampras' was normal. Both have great second serves too, but first serves will always be far more effective.

And you can say that Roddick is a shell of a player if his serve is figured out. That is true, in that his serve is his greatest weapon. Neutralize any player's greatest weapon and they don't look that great. But the fact is that virtually no one can neutralize his serve. Only Federer seems to be able to do it consistently, and even Federer frequently can't read it. Just look at the 2009 Wimbledon where Roddick held serve against Federer something like 34 times in a row before he was finally broken. Federer was completely lost on how to read Roddick's serve. The only reason Federer was able to win that match was because he himself served better than he has ever served in any match of his life.

Roddick's serve is dependent on power, placement is secondary, that is why you saw all those matches where he started to get tired and his serve slowed down and he would end up losing 5-7 in a crucial set. His placement and variety have gotten a lot better, maybe that's because of Stefanki i don't know. But yeah even when his serve was unstoppable, he would have a horrible service game and that would be it, he had nothing to fall back on as the previous poster said.

The Wimbledon final was something else though, his serve was as good as i have ever seen it, but even then his returning cost him the match, he had 15-40 and a chance to get the break in the final set, but once again someone with a more consistent serve came through.

jcempire
02-13-2010, 02:01 PM
One of concern is........Roddick miss a lot big point including Match points (that best players not happen often as Fed, NADAL, Sampras, Mr.Andre Courier)

And Roddick never have enough patient..... So He got to be more aggressive but unluck he only be enough Aggressive at age 21

So........

Shirogane
02-13-2010, 04:34 PM
haha, this poll should have been made public.

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 04:56 PM
Roddick's serve is dependent on power, placement is secondary, that is why you saw all those matches where he started to get tired and his serve slowed down and he would end up losing 5-7 in a crucial set. His placement and variety have gotten a lot better, maybe that's because of Stefanki i don't know. But yeah even when his serve was unstoppable, he would have a horrible service game and that would be it, he had nothing to fall back on as the previous poster said.

The Wimbledon final was something else though, his serve was as good as i have ever seen it, but even then his returning cost him the match, he had 15-40 and a chance to get the break in the final set, but once again someone with a more consistent serve came through.

I agree that Roddick is more about power than placement. But the fact is that, whatever he relies on, it works, and his percentage of serving games held is consistently about 91-92%, which is the same as Sampras was getting at his peak. You can say Roddick has nothing to fall back on if he has a horrible service game, but that is already factored in to the statistic of service games held. Those are the games he loses. It is clear that despite having less to fall back on than a player like Sampras, Roddick holds serve a similar percentage of the time. His serve is clearly ridiculously dominant.

And I don't really think you can blame the Wimbledon loss on Roddick's returning. Federer has incredible disguise and placement. If his serve is on, he can do that sort of thing to anyone. And honestly, are you really going to say that someone sucks because they had 15-40 and didnt get the break? When someone is serving like Federer was, 15-40 is probably about a 50-50 chance of getting the break.

One of concern is........Roddick miss a lot big point including Match points (that best players not happen often as Fed, NADAL, Sampras, Mr.Andre Courier)

That's a misconception. Roddick is actually pretty clutch. For instance, Roddick is EXTREMELY good in tiebreaks. I believe he has the record with 18 straight tiebreaks won, and he always ends up with A LOT more tiebreaks won than lost in a season.

Shirogane
02-13-2010, 05:32 PM
If he was that clutch maybe he would've led Fed two sets to one in that Wimbly final. But then again, might have then gone on to lose in five, since he ain't exactly that good with two-set leads either...

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 05:34 PM
If he was that clutch maybe he would've led Fed two sets to one in that Wimbly final. But then again, might have then gone on to lose in five, since he ain't exactly that good with two-set leads either...

Are you serious? The man missed one important volley in a tiebreak and suddenly he is totally not clutch? No. That's one shot, and EVERY player has made errors in important moments before. The fact is that Roddick is actually a very clutch player. Tiebreaks are the essence of being clutch, and Roddick may be the greatest tiebreak player ever.

Shirogane
02-13-2010, 05:50 PM
Let's be clear, I do think the guy's done really well with what he's got.


Tiebreaks are the essence of being clutch, and Roddick may be the greatest tiebreak player ever.........


I'll happily agree to disagree on this one.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 07:40 PM
Yea Roddick showed us how clutch he was Wimbledon last year:eek: How about those other few matches he pissed away against Federer cause he failed in the clutch??


Roddick isnt clutch.. Thats crock of shit. If he was clutch he wouldnt be a one slam wonder. How many set points did he blow at Wimbledon last year and a few others? Why couldnt he put away an easy routine volley? if anything Roddick has severe nerve and mental problems when hes outclassed and outmatched

Bobby
02-13-2010, 08:29 PM
Yea Roddick showed us how clutch he was Wimbledon last year:eek: How about those other few matches he pissed away against Federer cause he failed in the clutch??


Roddick isnt clutch.. Thats crock of shit. If he was clutch he wouldnt be a one slam wonder. How many set points did he blow at Wimbledon last year and a few others? Why couldnt he put away an easy routine volley? if anything Roddick has severe nerve and mental problems when hes outclassed and outmatched

There are no easy routine volleys in the final of Wimbledon.

Corey Feldman
02-13-2010, 08:32 PM
one was a spartan

one is a frat boy

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 08:56 PM
There are no easy routine volleys in the final of Wimbledon.

Theres no easy routine volleys with Roddick at all because he sucks at the net

gorgo1986
02-13-2010, 09:33 PM
Theres no easy routine volleys with Roddick at all because he sucks at the net

:tape::spit::haha::rolls:

lessthanjake
02-13-2010, 09:51 PM
Yea Roddick showed us how clutch he was Wimbledon last year:eek: How about those other few matches he pissed away against Federer cause he failed in the clutch??


Roddick isnt clutch.. Thats crock of shit. If he was clutch he wouldnt be a one slam wonder. How many set points did he blow at Wimbledon last year and a few others? Why couldnt he put away an easy routine volley? if anything Roddick has severe nerve and mental problems when hes outclassed and outmatched

How many set points has Sampras wasted in finals of slams? A lot. How many set points has Federer wasted in finals of slams? A lot. It's part of the game, buddy. No one comes through every single time they have a chance to close out a game or a set or a match. This is a pattern I have seen with you though. You seem to frequently say players suck based on a single instance of not closing something out. You really are an idiot if you don't see that EVERY single player in the history of tennis has failed to close something out MANY times.

The fact is that you can't denigrate a player for being mentally weak and bad in the clutch when he has won about 2/3 of his tiebreaks over the past like 5 or 6 years and has the record for the most tiebreaks won in a row (18 tiebreaks in a row is just inhuman). Tiebreaks are the essence of a clutch moment in tennis. By definition, both players have been playing pretty equally to have made it to a tiebreak, so the winner will be the one who steps up the most. The fact is that Roddick steps up and wins the tiebreaks the vast majority of the time. How is that not a clutch player?

And as a sidenote, it is funny that you bring up Wimbledon last year as an example of failing in the clutch. Did he screw up a relatively easy volley at an important moment? Yeah. But the man also held serve like 34 times in a row in a slam final. That takes a lot of mental fortitude to do.

SetSampras
02-13-2010, 10:35 PM
How many set points has Sampras wasted in finals of slams? A lot. How many set points has Federer wasted in finals of slams? A lot. It's part of the game, buddy. No one comes through every single time they have a chance to close out a game or a set or a match. This is a pattern I have seen with you though. You seem to frequently say players suck based on a single instance of not closing something out. You really are an idiot if you don't see that EVERY single player in the history of tennis has failed to close something out MANY times.

The fact is that you can't denigrate a player for being mentally weak and bad in the clutch when he has won about 2/3 of his tiebreaks over the past like 5 or 6 years and has the record for the most tiebreaks won in a row (18 tiebreaks in a row is just inhuman). Tiebreaks are the essence of a clutch moment in tennis. By definition, both players have been playing pretty equally to have made it to a tiebreak, so the winner will be the one who steps up the most. The fact is that Roddick steps up and wins the tiebreaks the vast majority of the time. How is that not a clutch player?

And as a sidenote, it is funny that you bring up Wimbledon last year as an example of failing in the clutch. Did he screw up a relatively easy volley at an important moment? Yeah. But the man also held serve like 34 times in a row in a slam final. That takes a lot of mental fortitude to do.



If you go and ask a thousand tennis fans who have followed the game and ask them to comprise a list of the most mentally tough and clutch players in history, most if not all of them will include Sampras, Nadal, and Borg on their list. .. How many people would actually say Roddick in terms of clutchness? . Fed is mentally clutch for the most part. Except for the fact when he has to play Nadal someone who is even more mentally clutch them him.


Sure Roddick held serve quite a well in Wimbldeon.. I give him his props. But at the same time look at how easy Fed held serve. 50 ACES!!! Thats inexecusable. I dont care what anyone says. Fed isnt Karlovic and this isnt freakin 90s grass at Wimbledon either. Now imagine if Roddick could return Fed's serve and many minimizing Fed to 25-30 aces, the match would have been in the palm of his hand most likely and not pissing so many set points away to go up 2 sets to 1. The match was Roddick's. But Roddick just couldnt go for the juguluar and go for the lead. He led Fed hang around. When you let Fed hang around you pay.

2003
02-14-2010, 07:47 AM
Well if Davide Burger Shambian had as much resolve as he does at dunkin doughnuts, and that stupid fan at 2003 US Open had kept his trap shut, we may never have even been having this discussion as a none slam chunder is worse than even a 4 slam wonder like Courier.

Can't believe no one else has mentioned that if Burger Bandian had taken his match point Roddick would still be none sham wonder he deserves to be.

2003
02-14-2010, 07:54 AM
If you go and ask a thousand tennis fans who have followed the game and ask them to comprise a list of the most mentally tough and clutch players in history, most if not all of them will include Sampras, Nadal, and Borg on their list. ..

He led Fed hang around. When you let Fed hang around you pay.

Capsical is not a spartan though nor is he clutch..it was proven in a thread here a while back that hes actually a mental midget in the clutch moments.

RE your second point, tell that to Pol Pony Pot Smoke. He led Federer hang from the rafters and eventually hang himself 2-6 in the fifth set of 2009 US OPEN.

Boris Franz Ecker
02-14-2010, 08:52 AM
Courier by far.

But Roddick made more prize money.

At the end, the players play for money if not for the big title.

But Courier couldn't earn as much because he played earlier. In our times he would probably earn more money than Roddick. Courier was also two times a finalist a the Masters.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 01:56 PM
If you go and ask a thousand tennis fans who have followed the game and ask them to comprise a list of the most mentally tough and clutch players in history, most if not all of them will include Sampras, Nadal, and Borg on their list. .. How many people would actually say Roddick in terms of clutchness? . Fed is mentally clutch for the most part. Except for the fact when he has to play Nadal someone who is even more mentally clutch them him.

That's just because the thousand tennis fans that one asks would think about slam finals when they talk about clutchness. ANd besides the final he won, Roddick has only played slam finals against Federer. Thus he has lost, thus there is never going to be a common perception that he is clutch.

I am not looking for common perception here. What I am trying to do is break that perception. The fact is that, in general, Roddick is a very clutch player. His tiebreak records show this to be the case. Losing to Federer, a better player who matches up well against him, in slam finals does NOT change that. You wish it did, but it doesnt. It just means that he loses to the GOAT.


Sure Roddick held serve quite a well in Wimbldeon.. I give him his props. But at the same time look at how easy Fed held serve. 50 ACES!!! Thats inexecusable. I dont care what anyone says. Fed isnt Karlovic and this isnt freakin 90s grass at Wimbledon either. Now imagine if Roddick could return Fed's serve and many minimizing Fed to 25-30 aces, the match would have been in the palm of his hand most likely and not pissing so many set points away to go up 2 sets to 1. The match was Roddick's. But Roddick just couldnt go for the juguluar and go for the lead. He led Fed hang around. When you let Fed hang around you pay.

Oh, how lame you are. Roddick actually broke Federer twice in that match despite Federer's ungodly serving and 50 aces. Is Roger Federer actually Ivo Karlovic? No. But on that day, he served about as well as Karlovic, and of course Federer backed it up with his incredible ground game. Breaking him twice took a lot.

Could Roddick have returned Federer's serve a little bit better? Yeah, probably. But for the most part, Federer's aces are pretty unreturnable since he relies in placement, not speed. It is amazing that you are acting like Roddick choked that match. Look up the stats! He served 70% first serves. He had 72 winners to 34 unforced errors! That is absurd! Even if you don't count service points as winners/errors, it was still 47 winners and 30 unforced errors, which is amazing! He had only 5 break point chances, but converted 2 of them, while only letting Federer convert 1 of 7 break chances. Even though he isnt a great volleyer normally, he stepped it up HUGELY and converted 42 of 69 points at the net (though, of course, he did miss one crucial volley). He held serve 34 times in a row. He forced a 5th set after going down 2 sets to 1. These are not the numbers of someone who choked a match. Rather they are the numbers of someone who played possibly the greatest match of his entire life, but fell just short against someone who is a better player.

Did Roddick have chances to go up 2 sets to 1? Yeah. But then again, Federer also had about 19208312 chances to break to give himself the opportunity to serve out the first set, and Roddick stopped him from breaking and then broke for the set himself. These things go both ways, because every single tennis player in the world is sometimes unable to close something out.

rocketassist
02-14-2010, 02:10 PM
Federer's ground game was shit in that Wimbledon final.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 02:23 PM
Federer's ground game was shit in that Wimbledon final.

False.

57 winners and 34 unforced errors (not counting service winners).

rocketassist
02-14-2010, 03:22 PM
I watched it, and he was crap (bar serve). Stats don't tell it all.

marcRD
02-14-2010, 05:05 PM
One thing which I find interesting in tennis is that 2 years as the best is valued more than 10 years in the top 5/10. In football or hockey if a player comes up and plays great in 2 years and disappears I think it is less valued than a player who has been a top 10 player for 10 years.

I came to think about Michael Owen who peaked early and was the darling of England and was considered a superstar at 18 and you can compare him with a player of the same age like Steven Gerrard who has been playing for ages and just slowly grown into a giant while Owen faded away quickly. I dont want to say that Courier is like Owen and Roddick like Gerrard, I just feel a player with the dedication to hang in there and fight like Roddick has must be appreciated, Courier with his mini-era made the numbers work for his favour but the way he faded away after that is really not good for his legacy.

Courier's resume is better and I think it always will be, but longevity and managing to stay at the top with 3-4 different generations is something I think is alittle underrated in tennis. GS Titles and weeks as nr1 shouldnt mean everything, even if it does weight alot when you take things into consideration.

Start da Game
02-14-2010, 05:39 PM
joke of a poll........courier could play on any surface, roddick cannot........

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 06:44 PM
I watched it, and he was crap (bar serve). Stats don't tell it all.

BS. 34 unforced errors in like 70+ games of tennis is just NOT crap. Sorry but your almost certainly biased idea of how Federer played does not change the actual facts. And the facts are that he had over 1.5x more winners than errors on the ground. That is very very good. Typically, Federer might get more winners than he did with his groundstrokes, but 34 unforced errors over 351 non-aced/double faulted points is phenomenal.

EDIT: In contrast, Federer made 40 errors on the ground over 189 non-aced/double faulted points in the 2010 Australian Open Finals

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 06:49 PM
One thing which I find interesting in tennis is that 2 years as the best is valued more than 10 years in the top 5/10. In football or hockey if a player comes up and plays great in 2 years and disappears I think it is less valued than a player who has been a top 10 player for 10 years.

I came to think about Michael Owen who peaked early and was the darling of England and was considered a superstar at 18 and you can compare him with a player of the same age like Steven Gerrard who has been playing for ages and just slowly grown into a giant while Owen faded away quickly. I dont want to say that Courier is like Owen and Roddick like Gerrard, I just feel a player with the dedication to hang in there and fight like Roddick has must be appreciated, Courier with his mini-era made the numbers work for his favour but the way he faded away after that is really not good for his legacy.

Courier's resume is better and I think it always will be, but longevity and managing to stay at the top with 3-4 different generations is something I think is alittle underrated in tennis. GS Titles and weeks as nr1 shouldnt mean everything, even if it does weight alot when you take things into consideration.

I think the difference in valuing longevity over peak in tennis is based on the fact that it isnt a team game. In a team game, you are probably of more value overall to your team if you put in 10 years being very good than 2 years being the very best. This ends up giving your team more chances to win championships with that player as the leader. But in tennis, it doesnt work that way. You don't give yourself more chances to win championships with 10 years being very good, because being very good is not good enough to win a major championship in an individual sport. 2 years being the best gives a much higher chance of winning championships.

MalwareDie
02-14-2010, 06:56 PM
False.

57 winners and 34 unforced errors (not counting service winners).

You are clueless. Have a nice day.

lessthanjake
02-14-2010, 07:08 PM
You are clueless. Have a nice day.

How in the world could you say that someone who made only 34 errors in 351 non-aced/doublefaulted points was playing crap on the ground?

Typically, Federer gets more winners than he did (47 winners in 351 points isnt that high), so he was clearly playing conservatively. But playing conservatively is not the same as playing badly. It clearly worked as he had over 1.5x more winners on the ground than errors, which is always very very good.

Note, I also watched the match and did not think Federer was playing crap. But stats tell the story more than my own opinion does.

crude oil
02-15-2010, 05:28 AM
courier has the better accomplishments because he excelled on surfaces that the dominant player of his era did not excel at.

federer and roddick are both dueling for the same slams.

Imagine if courier sucked on clay/slow courts and was say about the same level as ivanisevic on grass...he would maybe have one slam???

but then again, there was no nadal either during courier's time.

Courier is more like hewitt imo - filled the void between super champions.

clearly...courier is better than roddick overall because the dude could play on clay.

Mechlan
02-15-2010, 06:25 AM
How in the world could you say that someone who made only 34 errors in 351 non-aced/doublefaulted points was playing crap on the ground?

Typically, Federer gets more winners than he did (47 winners in 351 points isnt that high), so he was clearly playing conservatively. But playing conservatively is not the same as playing badly. It clearly worked as he had over 1.5x more winners on the ground than errors, which is always very very good.

Note, I also watched the match and did not think Federer was playing crap. But stats tell the story more than my own opinion does.

No, stats do not always tell the story. The Murray-Nadal match this past AO was exceptionally high quality. You look at the stats and you'd think that match was shit, especially by Nadal. It was not. There are a a number of factors in play, including the surface, playing conditions, styles of game, etc that contribute to that differential. You can't just look at stats and evaluate performance based on that.

lessthanjake
02-15-2010, 08:39 AM
No, stats do not always tell the story. The Murray-Nadal match this past AO was exceptionally high quality. You look at the stats and you'd think that match was shit, especially by Nadal. It was not. There are a a number of factors in play, including the surface, playing conditions, styles of game, etc that contribute to that differential. You can't just look at stats and evaluate performance based on that.

Oh I'd be the first to say (and in fact have said in the past on this forum) that the surface and the players make a difference in the winners-unforced errors department. The longer the rally, the greater the chance for an unforced error, and the faster the court, the easier it is to hit a winner. Thus, the winner/unforced error ratio will always be better on a fast court like Wimbledon. And it will be better against a player like Roddick than against a player like Nadal, since Nadal's style of play leads to the longer rallies that make the winner/unforced error stat look worse for both people.

And so, yeah, Federer looks better in this case due to playing at Wimbledon and playing against a player who doesnt go for extremely long rallies (although, Roddick no longer tries to end points extremely quickly or anything; hes just no Nadal in this respect).

But even with those things in mind, 57 winners to 34 errors on the ground (ie not counting aces) is some good stuff no matter the surface and opponent (it would just be even better if it were like at the French Open against Nadal). Its especially good when you realize that there were 351 ground points in that match. Making an error on less than 10% of non-aced points is pretty exceptional no matter the circumstances. It means you really just aren't giving your opponent anything for free.

Sophocles
02-15-2010, 09:59 AM
Statistics are an important objective base for evaluating the quality of a match, but they tell you only how points *ended*. The majority of shots are not point-winning or losing shots. Were there a lot of spectacular rallies in 2009? Not that I remember. How many of Fed's missed passing shots went down as forced errors? We don't know. It wasn't a crap match as some are saying, but it wasn't great either.

rocketassist
02-15-2010, 11:33 AM
I watched every minute of that final and Fed's forehand was in shank mode all the way through and lacked penetration.

He was way below par off the ground and because of that Roddick managed to compete with him in the rallies.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=147181&highlight=federer+roddick

Look how many people in this thread said Federer played a great match :lol:

SetSampras
02-15-2010, 06:04 PM
Ughhhh.. Courier like Hewitt?? Please. Thats not a knock on Hewitt. He was very good at his peak.. But come on now

lessthanjake
02-15-2010, 07:23 PM
I watched every minute of that final and Fed's forehand was in shank mode all the way through and lacked penetration.

He was way below par off the ground and because of that Roddick managed to compete with him in the rallies.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=147181&highlight=federer+roddick

Look how many people in this thread said Federer played a great match :lol:

No. What Federer did was play CONSERVATIVELY. That means less penetration on his shots and less winners, but less errors as well. So yeah, was he clipping lines left and right for winners/deep shots? Not exactly. But he also wasn't handing Roddick virtually anything. Again 34 errors in 351 played points is ridiculously impressive no matter the surface/opponent. It is VERY rare for a player to have unforced errors on less than 10% of played points. I am astonished that you would suggest that a player played like crap when they did this.

What you are doing is confusing Federer's gameplan for him being below par. He seemed to wager that he could win most rallies against Roddick, so he played conservatively. The result was less penetration on his shots and less glorious winners. This has made you say he sucked. But in reality, it also lead to an absurdly low amount of errors. I am shocked that you say he was in shank mode. Shanks, by definition, are errors. He had very few errors. Try again.

Was it Federer at his very peak? No. I dont think Federer is at his peak playing conservatively. He almost was in pusher mode in the match. And obviously, the points were short enough that less than 10% of points being errors isnt as impressive as it is in other cases. But the fact is that he wasn't handing Roddick anything, and played what I believe to be about normal Federer level on the ground, even if it was very different from how he normally plays.

And that was really the point that was being disputed. I said that Roddick managed to hold 34 times in a row (and break Federer twice even with Feds glorious serving) despite going against Federer's great ground game. Federer surely wasnt in JesusFed mode, but his ground game is still pretty glorious when he is playing at his normal level. It is certainly VERY hard to hold 34 times when faced with someone making few errors, and it is hard to break someone who is serving like a god and also isn't handing you anything.

crude oil
02-16-2010, 01:38 AM
No. What Federer did was play CONSERVATIVELY. That means less penetration on his shots and less winners, but less errors as well. So yeah, was he clipping lines left and right for winners/deep shots? Not exactly. But he also wasn't handing Roddick virtually anything. Again 34 errors in 351 played points is ridiculously impressive no matter the surface/opponent. It is VERY rare for a player to have unforced errors on less than 10% of played points. I am astonished that you would suggest that a player played like crap when they did this.

What you are doing is confusing Federer's gameplan for him being below par. He seemed to wager that he could win most rallies against Roddick, so he played conservatively. The result was less penetration on his shots and less glorious winners. This has made you say he sucked. But in reality, it also lead to an absurdly low amount of errors. I am shocked that you say he was in shank mode. Shanks, by definition, are errors. He had very few errors. Try again.

Was it Federer at his very peak? No. I dont think Federer is at his peak playing conservatively. He almost was in pusher mode in the match. And obviously, the points were short enough that less than 10% of points being errors isnt as impressive as it is in other cases. But the fact is that he wasn't handing Roddick anything, and played what I believe to be about normal Federer level on the ground, even if it was very different from how he normally plays.

And that was really the point that was being disputed. I said that Roddick managed to hold 34 times in a row (and break Federer twice even with Feds glorious serving) despite going against Federer's great ground game. Federer surely wasnt in JesusFed mode, but his ground game is still pretty glorious when he is playing at his normal level. It is certainly VERY hard to hold 34 times when faced with someone making few errors, and it is hard to break someone who is serving like a god and also isn't handing you anything.

Federer is a tactical player. He doesn't need to go for lines against roddick because his defense and movement is superior. So he will play the percentages and most times he will win unless roddick catches fire. Roddick caught fire for a while but its still hard to beat federer in 5 sets on grass when federer is serving like that.

Some people interpret conservative playing to mean the player was playing badly. Federer did not play badly but he played well within himself and let roddick take the initiative knowing full well that it would be tough for roddick to keep that up for 5 sets. the shocking thing is that he almost did.

MalwareDie
02-16-2010, 04:44 AM
I watched every minute of that final and Fed's forehand was in shank mode all the way through and lacked penetration.

He was way below par off the ground and because of that Roddick managed to compete with him in the rallies.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=147181&highlight=federer+roddick

Look how many people in this thread said Federer played a great match :lol:

Agree. Ugly match.

gorgo1986
02-16-2010, 10:48 AM
I wonder who the 26 fan boys who voted for Andy Roddick are and why they didn't have the balls to defend their choice. I mean if your gonna vote for someone at least explain your choice. I guess they are too embarrassed? :lol:

heya
02-16-2010, 11:19 AM
Sympathy votes are given to a Davis Cup loser who was proud of choosing the wrong occupation. I didn't expect Federer's little apologist could be compared to Courier.

marcRD
02-16-2010, 05:03 PM
Sympathy votes are given to a Davis Cup loser who was proud of choosing the wrong occupation. I didn't expect Federer's little apologist could be compared to Courier.

I dont expect you to answer me anyway (you seem to live in your own world of mumbling and repeating your thoughts to yourself), but isnt Couriers tounge way more up in Federers ass than anyone else?