Roddick - Do you think he's had a bad year? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roddick - Do you think he's had a bad year?

JCF
10-16-2004, 02:00 PM
I think in 2003 he way overachieved for his talent, this year he's been more on a level for his talent, but i still think he's ranked too high.

anyway i think he's had a good year considering his game

Rogiman
10-16-2004, 02:10 PM
No, he's had a good year by any measure.

He's been both lucky and unlucky.

Unlucky because it's Fed's time, lucky because everybody else simply sucked this year.

Fedex
10-16-2004, 02:12 PM
He has certianly had a good year, despite no slam title this year. He has 4 titles, and if it werent for Federer, Roddick would have atleast won Wimbledon, Toronto, and Bangkok. Just unlucky for him, Roddick's prime is parallel with Federer's.

maratski
10-16-2004, 02:22 PM
IMHO Roddick is not the type of player to be winning a GS tournament every year so winning 4 titles is not that bad at all.

Havok
10-16-2004, 02:23 PM
If that's what you think then everybody, save Federer, has had a terrible year. (and I'm not counting Gaudio's GS win as a "good year" because the dude can't do anything else)

maratski
10-16-2004, 02:24 PM
Naldo it might be easy to quote the person your comment refers to ;)

RPH
10-16-2004, 02:25 PM
If Roddick's had a bad year then Rainer Schuettler's had a good year ;)

Roddick's game apart from his serve is overranked but when you've got his type of serve your overall game doesn't need to be great

Im sure he'll be disappointed by his lack of success in the slams and his performances against Federer this year though ;)

But overall he shouldn't be unhappy with his year

Fedex
10-16-2004, 02:43 PM
If that's what you think then everybody, save Federer, has had a terrible year. (and I'm not counting Gaudio's GS win as a "good year" because the dude can't do anything else)
So, how many errors do I need to correct here? Oh, here we go AGAIN, the discrediting of Gaudio's FO win. Please, he has made I believe 4 other finals, 3 in a row after the FO. If you want to say that, I can say, Roddick cant do shit on anything outside hardcourts, and grass. He's fortunate that the vast majority of the year is on those 2 surfaces, where as, for Gaudio there arent near the ammount of clay tournements, as there are hard. Had this been flipped around, and most of the year was played on clay, and not hard, Roddick would have had far worse results than Gaudio's overall results. Roddick is just very fortunate, that so many tournements are played on hardcourt. So in truth, Roddick is more one dementional than Gaudio. Anyone, with their heads on straight would know this.

Havok
10-16-2004, 03:41 PM
Where did I say Gaudio was one dimensional anyways?:retard: All I said was that I disn't count Gaudio, though you can by all means. And my reason for saying he didn't do much else means that he didn't win any other title this year. Looks a bit odd to me since he should have won some smaller clay events because the guy is so damn good on the clay. Maratski I don't think it's that hard to figure out who I was talking to.;)

makro120
10-16-2004, 03:45 PM
I think Hewitt is having a great year too. Maybe he is playing the tennis of his life this year, he is just unlucky Federer is out there.

Havok
10-16-2004, 03:46 PM
Oh and just for fun I went to check Gaudio's activity for this year. He's played 21 total events, though I throw out that exhibition tournament between countries played on clay, so in reality he played 20 events where points/titles were on the line. Out of those 20 events, he played 7 hardcourt tournaments and a whopping13 clay events. So saying that the tour is dominated by hardcourts and use that in defence of gaudio is pure bullshit. Gaudio knows his best surface is clay so he played on clay every chance he got. Just because there are more hardcourt events going on in the year doesn't mean shit because there are always these idiotic clay events going on during the hardcourt season where players go to play there because they favor the clay.:)

Experimentee
10-16-2004, 04:10 PM
I wouldnt call Roddick's year bad by anyones standards.
Gaudio has had a good year. Any year where you win a Slam and reach 3 other finals is a good year.

Nymeria
10-16-2004, 04:20 PM
I don't think he has a bad year, just really unlucky with the really good Federer. But I don't know if he really is the 2nd best this year, there are more who deserve the second spot. I think Hewitt had a really good year and Gaudio of course as well.

Fedex
10-16-2004, 04:45 PM
Anyone who thinks that Roddick has had a 'bad year' should get their head checked. He's had a great year and has dominated almost the entire tour, on surfaces not named clay. The only reason why he hasnt won more tournements or a slam, is because he has been dominated by Federer.

WyveN
10-16-2004, 05:24 PM
His had a good year with only one real bad loss, USO QF. I think he will be pleased looking back on 2004.

Sjengster
10-16-2004, 05:26 PM
It hasn't been as good as last year, but then last year was an exceptional year by anyone's standards: breaking the QF barrier at the Slams for the first time, winning titles on clay and grass, winning 19 straight matches and three big tournaments in a row, a first GS title and finally the year-end no. 1 ranking aged only 21. I certainly think the achievement of winning Canada, Cincinnati and the US Open back to back is something neither Roddick nor any other player is going to repeat for a long time. Personally, I would still give him the edge over Hewitt this year because of the nature of his titles - not just a TMS victory, but winning something like Queens has more value to me than winning Washington and Long Island when your highest-ranked opponent is Chela.

Gaudio has still had the better 2004, mind you. To me anyone who wins a Grand Slam has a better year than a consistent performer who ends up being ranked higher but doesn't get to hold up the silverware. In the same way Johansson had a better 2002 than, say, Ferrero or Safin, despite missing the second half of the year with injury.

Fedex
10-16-2004, 05:34 PM
What clay title did he win last year, Sjengster?? I know the ones he has won, he has not even beaten one quality clay court player.

Crazy_Fool
10-16-2004, 05:39 PM
No, he's had a good year...its always gonna be difficult to emulate last year. I think he's improved as a player in general(apart from clay, where there's not even a small sign of improvement :o ), his results have been good, and if it wasn't for Federer, he would have won a whole lot more probably.

Sjengster
10-16-2004, 05:47 PM
What clay title did he win last year, Sjengster?? I know the ones he has won, he has not even beaten one quality clay court player.

St. Poelten, a reasonably prestigious event, although the field was hardly that strong last year. His good wins were over Public Urinator Beto Martin (it's a long story ;) ) and Davydenko in the final, and he did beat Coria the year before in Houston, when the latter was still making his comeback from suspension. The irony is that he lost the next week at RG to Sargsian, who is much weaker on clay than some of the players he beat in Austria - better than Wayne Arthurs, true, but he likes faster surfaces generally and he was still able to give Roddick a drubbing after the first set.

Jogy
10-16-2004, 05:51 PM
Roddick had a great year! :worship:

But this year was worse than last year because he couldn't win a Grand Slam.

If Federer would win only two Grand Slams in 2005 he also has a worse year than in 2004. It would be the same then. He has a great year, but not as great as 2004.

tangerine_dream
10-16-2004, 05:55 PM
A bad year? No. Compared to 2003 it's a disappointing year but there are 98 other guys behind him who wouldn't mind having Andy's "bad year."

Fedex
10-16-2004, 05:56 PM
I thought so, Sjengster. It had an incredibly weak field last year, so it hardly counts as a good win.

speedracer
10-16-2004, 06:09 PM
Roddick had a great year! :worship:

If Federer would win only two Grand Slams in 2005 he also has a worse year than in 2004. It would be the same then.

No, it wouldn't. Every year when someone wins at least one GS should be considered a great year, let alone two.

Roddick had a good, solid year. Nothing stands out though.

Chloe le Bopper
10-16-2004, 06:19 PM
If that's what you think then everybody, save Federer, has had a terrible year. (and I'm not counting Gaudio's GS win as a "good year" because the dude can't do anything else)

Erm, no. Because, see, everybody else didn't end 2003 with a slam and the number 1 ranking. Roddick's expectations are a little higher than most.

That said, all things considered he didn't have a bad year. It's probably a bit dissapointing for hte Roddick camp that he failed to win a slam and got beat at his own game in the QF of the USO, but it happens.

faboozadoo15
10-16-2004, 06:22 PM
bad year? no way! let down from 2003- you betcha. he dominated an entire part of the season and won a slam compared to 4 titles throughout the year. still, it's a great year, so many people would die for such a year and to be #2. federer is just that much better.

Jimena
10-16-2004, 06:58 PM
I remember an interview with Roddick during last year's Masters Cup where he said that the type of run that he had last year was probably going to be difficult to repeat, and that he had won a LOT of close matches. But that if he didn't win as many titles or didn't end the year as #1, but still became a better player, he would be satisfied with 2004.

I think this fits perfectly with the kind of year he has had. He didn't win the close matches this year, or at least not as many. But he is a better player than last year.

So yeah, not a bad year by any means. I think he might be disappointed at not winning a Slam (specially the US Open), but he needs to remember what he said last year and he will look at this year as a pretty good one anyway.

Deboogle!.
10-16-2004, 08:53 PM
I remember an interview with Roddick during last year's Masters Cup where he said that the type of run that he had last year was probably going to be difficult to repeat, and that he had won a LOT of close matches. But that if he didn't win as many titles or didn't end the year as #1, but still became a better player, he would be satisfied with 2004.

I think this fits perfectly with the kind of year he has had. He didn't win the close matches this year, or at least not as many. But he is a better player than last year.

So yeah, not a bad year by any means. I think he might be disappointed at not winning a Slam (specially the US Open), but he needs to remember what he said last year and he will look at this year as a pretty good one anyway.

Definitely! :) He has said something similar to this recently. Forget where and forget exactly what, but it was along these lines. There were a few big matches this year that he probably should have won, and that's disappointing, but that doesn't equate to having a "bad" year. Plus the year is not *quite* over :)

tennischick
10-16-2004, 09:53 PM
given the limitations of his game, i'd say the Duck had a terrific year.

mitalidas
10-17-2004, 01:10 AM
In the grand scheme of things no one remembers how many semifinals you make, and finals you lose. You become part of history because you (A). win grand slams (B) win Masters or (C) choke so badly that people cant forget.

by this standard, no one will remember roddick's 2004: He reached a GS final, so did Hewitt. He won 1 TMS, so did Hewitt. he won 3 other titles, so did Hewitt. Got bagelled by Roger, so did Hewitt. :)

Deboogle!.
10-17-2004, 01:37 AM
He won 1 TMS, so did Hewitt.

No Hewitt didn't (not yet, anyway)

Singles Winner: Rotterdam, Washington, Long Island, Sydney

he was finalist at Cincy. that's pretty much the difference between their points right there.

mitalidas
10-17-2004, 01:40 AM
oh sorry, I thought Rotterdam was a TMS
i stand corrected

and then, I guess I confirmed my theory -- barely get remembered for such things (if I cant remember now, will anyone care next year?)

Pea
10-17-2004, 01:41 AM
He's lucky to have the success he's had with that much lack of talents.

Peta Pan
10-17-2004, 04:33 AM
Andy's had an OK year... nothing exceptional, nothing spectacular, but it definitely wasn't a bad year. It would be a disappointing year for him I guess because of last years successes. Really though, everyone else's year paled in significance to Federer who had one of the best years in the games history

Deboogle!.
10-17-2004, 05:02 AM
Really though, everyone else's year paled in significance to Federer who had one of the best years in the games history

Yes, quite true :) But as we've talked about on the Andy forum, the only problems I see that you could argue about Andy year, like things he could actually have done something about, is because he lost some big matches that he REALLY should've won (I can name 3 off the top of my head)... and that has nothing to do with Roger. And if he had won those matches, his year would've been better, completely irrespective of anyone else's year :)

Marc Rosset is Tall
10-17-2004, 07:16 AM
Roddick has had a good year, it's just it will look a lot worse, just because of Federer's outstanding 2004.

superpinkone37
10-17-2004, 07:28 AM
compared to the year federer had, its like no one else was even out there. but even without taking into consideration the results of other players, i dont think andy had a *bad* year. obviously this summer was not like last summer, but we knew it would be very hard to repeat that. like deb said, the worst thing was the matches that andy should have won. last year, the year was so great because he pulled through on those tough close matches. that didnt happen this year. and had andy won those close matches, i think things would have been a lot different. but again, i dont think andy's year was all that bad, just maybe a little disapointing

WyveN
10-17-2004, 07:54 AM
I think Andy only had one bad loss, against Johansson. His game should match up well against him and losing to him at the US Open of all places was surprising.

Safin and Federer outplayed him at the two slams. Even at the non clay TMS tournaments he has lost to Henman, Federer and Agassi. Gonzalez was to good at the olympics and nothing can really be expected of Roddick on clay so none of those loses can be classified as bad.

swellde
10-17-2004, 09:46 AM
In my opinion, I think Andy has had a bad year. I agree, that almost any other player would love to have had Andy's year and, yes, it's tough to analyze whether a player has had a good/bad year because of Federer's dominance, and Andy would have won more titles including big ones, if it weren't for Roger; but all of that is irrelevant. This has not been a good year for him. Players who win TMS events and a Grand Slam and finish a year at number 1, are held to higher standards. I think Roddick's year is bad not because he didn't win a slam, but because I don't care how good Federer is, if you're last season's #1 and current #2, you have to show that you can step up as well, and at least be able to win one match against the top dog. And I don't think Roddick has shown a game yet this year, that should make top ten players fear having to play him. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I think that this has obviously been a bad year for Andy.

Eve83
10-17-2004, 01:32 PM
No, no...he had a great year. He would be the tennis-uber-God IF there wasn´t a guy named Federer.

maratski
10-17-2004, 01:35 PM
No, no...he had a great year. He would be the tennis-uber-God IF there wasn´t a guy named Federer.

I vote this post for the joke of the year :haha:

mitalidas
10-17-2004, 01:35 PM
No, no...he had a great year. He would be the tennis-uber-God IF there wasn´t a guy named Federer.


Not necessarily
If there wasn't a guy named Federer, then the USO champ would be Hewitt and he would be on top of the rankings, not roddick (who would have won Wimby but lost a lot of defending points at the USO and ended up below Hewitt)

Take Federer out of the equation, nothing is certain for roddick , there are others lurking too

tennischick
10-17-2004, 01:39 PM
i predicted last year that the Duck would start sliding down the scales and that he would never again have the year that he did. i still believe this. i think his results next year will be even worse than this year. why? bec (according to a # of tennis writers) he practically lives on pain-killers and anti-inflammatories bec of all the torquing and twisting he does to his body. you can only keep that up for so long. secondly, bec while his backhand has improved a tad, the overall improvement to his game just has not occurred. my prediction is a slow and continued slide downwards.

Billabong
10-17-2004, 02:14 PM
I think he had a good year, with a TMS and some other titles, but certainly not as good as last year... he still won over 65 matches, no??

Nimi
10-17-2004, 04:48 PM
Well, it certainly wasn't a bad year, but a dissapointing one for Roddick. In my mind, Andy's highest quality win was the one against Hewitt in Queen's. He lost a bunch of matches he certainly should have won (against the likes of Bjorkman, Spadea, Enqvist, and of course Johansson), and that's completely ignoring the clay season as well. Thing is, is that I always thought Roddick has a great attacking ground game. I think I was proven wrong this season, Roddick can't completely dominate anyone of the ground. Players have done well before with a one-dimentional game, but if you want to succeed with such a game, the one dimension you own has to be great. Andy's attacking game, which is his basic game apart from the big serve, is not quite of the elite class. If he doesn't evolve his attacking game (either off the ground or near the net), than 2003 surely will not repeat itself. 2004 might even be too good for him in the upcoming years.

Deboogle!.
10-17-2004, 05:01 PM
Not necessarily
If there wasn't a guy named Federer, then the USO champ would be Hewitt and he would be on top of the rankings, not roddick (who would have won Wimby but lost a lot of defending points at the USO and ended up below Hewitt)

Take Federer out of the equation, nothing is certain for roddick , there are others lurking too

Well yes of course, if there wasn't a guy named Federer, Andre probably would've gotten to the USO final... would Hewitt have beaten him? The way Andre was playing I am not so sure. So as you said, you never know.

Billabong, I don't think winning a lot of matches makes you have a good year. Andy has won about the same # as Roger - winning matches means nothing, it's the matches you win that are important. And Andy lost about three really important matches that he could've, if not should've, won (Henman at Indian Wells, Mutis at RG, and Johansson at USO) that could've changed his year a lot. This isn't including the little matches he lost that he could have won in smaller tournaments, and he played completely flakily at the Olympics (Though, so did mostly everyone else lol).

You can't measure the quality of Andy's or anyone's year by anyone else's standards, sure Roger had an amazing year and sure, there are tons of players who would like to have had his year, but by his OWN standards is what the measurement is, no? He's said something like "I've had a good year but some disappointments" - I think that sums it up. There were lots of positives to his year - he showed his improvements in his backhand, movement, and he kept working hard at coming to net more, even if it failed him sometimes. He also got some wins over a few major players who had given him a lot of problems, that's key mentally for him over the coming years. He won Miami, which was very important to him because he grew up there and had his family there. Finals at Wimbledon, not too shabby considering he thought he totally sucked on grass not even 2 years ago. But there were some negatives - mental weakness in some matches that shouldn't have been, he had some unfortunate small nagging injuries that luckily were nothing serious but kept him out of a couple tournaments where he might have been able to post a few wins, etc.

It's one of those "Yea it was good, but..." things. As a fan, I hope he takes the negatives and works hard on continuing to improve and work from the mistakes. I don't know how confident I am that he will actually do that. This year seems like it was one of those transition years for a player like him in his postition. I think how he deals with it and what he does next year will be very telling for the rest of his career.

Fedex
10-17-2004, 05:06 PM
I think Andy only had one bad loss, against Johansson. His game should match up well against him and losing to him at the US Open of all places was surprising.

Safin and Federer outplayed him at the two slams. Even at the non clay TMS tournaments he has lost to Henman, Federer and Agassi. Gonzalez was to good at the olympics and nothing can really be expected of Roddick on clay so none of those loses can be classified as bad.
I'm not sure how Roddicks game matches up well against Johansson. He simply overpowered Roddick at the Open. I ,for instance, dont see a Roddick-Johansson as bad as a matchup of games, like Federer - Roddick or Hewitt - Henman.

Adam Thirnis
10-17-2004, 05:21 PM
I think the reason Roddick lost to JJ was he was psychologically devastated after the Federer/Agassi match.

When Andre took that match into a 5th set Andy must have thought there was a real chance Roger was going out. As things turned out Roddick knew that even if he made the final he was going to find the Swiss genius looking at him from across the net. And even A-Rod must have known what a foregone conclusion that would have been.

mitalidas
10-17-2004, 07:49 PM
I think the reason Roddick lost to JJ was he was psychologically devastated after the Federer/Agassi match.
As things turned out Roddick knew that even if he made the final he was going to find the Swiss genius looking at him from across the net. And even A-Rod must have known what a foregone conclusion that would have been.

It's not like looking at Agassi across the net would have given him much better odds. Agassi had a 5-1 edge, which was not far from the 7-1 Roger held over him. And, Agassi had beaten him roddick only 2 weeks prior in Cincy

I think roddick just under-estimated Pimsquared and didn't convert on a gazillion chances

WyveN
10-18-2004, 12:52 AM
I ,for instance, dont see a Roddick-Johansson as bad as a matchup of games, like Federer - Roddick or Hewitt - Henman.

In Federer-Roddick and Hewitt-Henman there is a clash of styles that means Federer/Henman win just about all the matches.

Johansson's game is virtually identical to Roddicks and pimpim actually has aweaker backhand and probably serve. So you expect Roddick to win most of their matches if they both play their best.

mitalidas
10-18-2004, 01:43 AM
In Federer-Roddick and Hewitt-Henman there is a clash of styles that means Federer/Henman win just about all the matches.


you mean Federer/Hewitt ? :confused:

WyveN
10-18-2004, 03:10 AM
you mean Federer/Hewitt ? :confused:

:lol: yes

J. Corwin
10-18-2004, 07:50 AM
Definitely not a bad year for bad year's sake. But a relatively disappointing year for the world #2 after what he has achieved last year...but did he really expect to mirror last year's success? I think not. The only bad part of this year was his close match losses that he *should* have won.

Years from now looking back at Andy Roddick's career, 2004 will never be a "standout year" but I doubt it will be pointed to and be labelled "slump year" either.