About Andy Roddick [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

About Andy Roddick

Pages : [1] 2

Tourmalante
11-02-2005, 11:19 PM
Now I think the whole world is privy to the fact that Andy Roddick is in a carrer slump at the moment. The evidence is obvious for all to see so there is no need to belabor talking about that. What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.
I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end finishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed. The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.
Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in the early rounds seemingly every week.
Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?

Havok
11-02-2005, 11:25 PM
Someone desperately needs a life/brain and fast. There are just SO many things wrong with this load of garbage, and I was only able to read about a paragraph before my brain just completely shut it off.

blosson
11-02-2005, 11:30 PM
Yep Naldo, it's just all those old threads put together in one. The same old minestrone soup.

partygirl
11-02-2005, 11:31 PM
i wont even read it.

okay i did skim some and my question is what the hell is a legit title, there on the god damn tour for christ sake and he has one on every surface...this sucky year, what have you legitamatley done beside-

forget it i dont even know why im here- naldo, blosson let's go.

*slams door on your sorry ass*

jealous much?:rolls:

Paialii
11-02-2005, 11:35 PM
Now I think the whole world is privy to the fact that Andy Roddick is in a carrer slump at the moment. The evidence is obvious for all to see so there is no need to belabor talking about that. What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.
I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end inishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed. The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.
Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in te early rounds seemingly every week.
Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?

As someone who doesn't consider themself partial to either Andy or Federer, I must say that I don't think the hardcore fans of Roddick ever denied that Federer is the better player. You say that tennis is a game of geometry, of strategy, basically a game of more than just a big serve -- this is true, but tennis is one of the most mental sports out there, and it's quite obvious (to any tennis enthusiast) that one large chunk of Andy's mental side is missing; the confidence is gone.

It's not as if he doesn't possess the weapons and sheer power to outplay everyone BUT Federer. He does. He's shown it before. Is he consistent with it? No, and that's why you see him losing to so many players ranked lower than him. So let me say before I continue that I agree he doesn't have that complete package that he needs to tango with Federer.

Here's the way I see it, though. Without confidence, you don't win. I suppose the thought of not being able to beat Federer or other top-ranked players on a consistent basis (or at all) has played on Andy's mind quite a bit, and his confidence has gone down significantly. Being a Williams sisters fan, I compare it to Venus Williams' situation. For the past two years she has had zero confidence thanks to her own younger sister, Serena (who was at one point the Federer of women's tennis) and her injury problems. When her mental state was down, her winning was down. She still had the shots, but couldn't make them.

Roddick went for his forehand more in 2003. Anyone who compares matches can see that. His serve has increased in speed, it's somewhat increased in placement and spin, and I do think he's trying to polish the other sides of his game a little more. I think the only problem with his game is what Brad brought out of him: the aggression. He used to be a first-strike player. That's not there anymore. THAT is why he's losing. He's too neutral.

His serve is still one of the most effective ones on the tour. He has the shots, the power, the determination to win on any occasion, he just doesn't apply it to his best.

So for you to assess his losing etc. as him merely not being good enough to compete at the top level is foolish. It IS true that his mentality state isn't as positive as it used to be. It IS true that he has the capability to be 1 or 2 in the world again. It IS true that Federer is the better all-around player. He's (Andy) not someone that I see dropping out of the top five in the next couple of years, and I think he'll win another slam or two before he's finished. So what are you telling us that either isn't 100% biased and assumed or that we don't already know?

Edit: I suppose my avatar looks like a big confliction with all of this, but it's merely satirical. ;)

star
11-02-2005, 11:39 PM
Now I think the whole world is privy to the fact that Andy Roddick is in a carrer slump at the moment. The evidence is obvious for all to see so there is no need to belabor talking about that. What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.
I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end inishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed. The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.
Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in te early rounds seemingly every week.
Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?

What crack pipe have you been smoking?

But have it your way. Andy is playing just as well as he ever played in 2003.

Tourmalante
11-02-2005, 11:40 PM
The difference though, is that at her peak Venus was dominant so fans have a benchmark to compare her against and have some idea that she is vastly underachieving given her true capabilities. In comparison Andy only has a slam and to his name.

Sjengster
11-02-2005, 11:42 PM
[QUOTE=Tourmalante]Now I think the whole world is privy to the fact that Andy Roddick is in a carrer slump at the moment. The evidence is obvious for all to see so there is no need to belabor talking about that. What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.

I have seen plenty of Roddick fans saying that he needs to get his confidence and game back. I have seen virtually none saying that this will then magically result in him toppling Federer from the no. 1 ranking and automatically becoming the dominant force in the game. They're well aware of the scale of the challenge he faces.

I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end inishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed. The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.

It was a tight contest that year, and obviously his year-end no. 1 finish depended an awful lot on Ferrero stinking up the joint at the end of the year when he had big points on the line. But he certainly had a better overall year than Federer, who only closed the gap between them in the rankings in the last tournament of the year by winning it undefeated.

Why pick on Roddick specifically when no-one else outside the top two besides Safin has been able to win a required event this year? Everyone in the Top 10 has been falling to Federer or Nadal at some stage. Do Agassi and Hewitt deserve their Top 5 rankings with one Mickey Mouse title each? Plus your resume of Roddick's year does leave out the semis at the AO, semis at IW, final in Cincy... yes, European clay was a dead loss as usual, but see the two men mentioned above for more of the same.

Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in te early rounds seemingly every week.

Ah, so THAT explains his current 85-game holding streak... they can all figure out his serve now. I do agree that his serve is not the best on tour for several reasons, one being that it can be blocked back into play with regularity by skilled enough returners, but there are very few of those around who can do it on a consistent basis. All the players whom he has suffered early losses to this year, Mathieu, Muller, Karlovic, have serious game of one sort or another. Karlovic certainly did not beat Roddick because he found it easy to return the serve - it was because Roddick had no real clue to returning his.

Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?

This is the only part I generally agree with. I wonder how Roddick would have developed if he had not discovered his huge serve by accident at the age of 16 or 17, because by all accounts as a junior he was something of a baseline scrapper/grinder who had to work hard for his points, for all his forehand power. This style still reasserts itself when he moves too far behind the baseline and plays too passively, meaning that he becomes an odd hybrid of all-out big serving aggression and tentative, looping groundstroker. That said, I am not about to declare a man who has only just turned 23 dead in the water.

Tourmalante
11-02-2005, 11:45 PM
Star: Andy is not playing as well because without a miracle showing at Paris this week, he will end the year without even a masters series title.

Jimnik
11-02-2005, 11:45 PM
Now I think the whole world is privy to the fact that Andy Roddick is in a carrer slump at the moment. The evidence is obvious for all to see so there is no need to belabor talking about that. What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.
I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end inishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed. The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.
Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in te early rounds seemingly every week.
Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?
:rolleyes:
You really need to shorten the crap you write. Not everyone can be bothered to read all this nonsense. :yawn:

Hurley
11-02-2005, 11:47 PM
Star: Andy is not playing as well because without a miracle showing at Paris this week, he will end the year without even a masters series title.

Hmm. Can't say that about too many other players this year, can you?

Tourmalante
11-02-2005, 11:49 PM
Sjengster, perhaps I did not articulate my points clearly enough. Roddick's serve is still a force to be reckoned with, and the vast majority of the tour is still completely helpless before it. But with time there is a small, slowly growing niche of players that are no longer intimidated whatsoever by it. Where once there was only there was Roger and Lleyton, now there are several more players who are able to deal with it's pace.

DJ dropshot
11-02-2005, 11:50 PM
Star: Andy is not playing as well because without a miracle showing at Paris this week, he will end the year without even a masters series title.

Why the attack on Roddick? Just looking at some of your other posts, I see you're a huge Fed fan. Are you afraid Andy will turn the tables?

star
11-02-2005, 11:51 PM
:hatoff: Sjengster for the patience to respond to all of that.

Maybe Andy did suffer because he wasn't spotted as a super talented player when he was very young, but it's wrong to think he had no coaching up until the time he was in his mid-teens. He did have coaching both in Texas and in Florida. And, of course, there have been players who have been on the court since age three who still don't have a beautifully crafted game.

That said, I do admire the Spainish and their teaching system -- although I don't think it is monolithic. However, that's not the be all and end all of tennis either. There is room for all sorts of different tennis styles. Andy certainly isn't a beautiful stylist, but it is also not a fluke that he has been at the top of the game for about 5 years now either.

Tourmalante
11-02-2005, 11:53 PM
You are right that I should probably be more democratic in my criticism, but the fact that I am picking on Roddick is a sign of respect. Those other members of the top ten-Gaudio, Coria, Davydenko, etc. I respect so little as to not even deign to write about them. Gaudio is a flippant, spineless tanker who's talent is relegated to clay play, Coria has never been the same since the 2004 FO Final, Nalbandian hasn't been the same since the 2003 US Open Semi, and Davydenko is a journeyman masquerading as a top ten player.

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 12:00 AM
You are right that I should probably be more democratic in my criticism, but the fact that I am picking on Roddick is a sign of respect. Those other members of the top ten-Gaudio, Coria, Davydenko, etc. I respect so little as to not even deign to write about them. Gaudio is a flippant, spineless tanker who's talent is relegated to clay play, Coria has never been the same since the 2004 FO Final, Nalbandian hasn't been the same since the 2003 US Open Semi, and Davydenko is a journeyman masquerading as a top ten player.

Andy should truly be thankful that you have condescended to lambast him with such beautifully chosen words. :worship:

Note: extending churlish criticism of Roddick to other Top 10 players, acting on the principle of "Slam One, Slam All", is not going to get people to agree with you.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 12:01 AM
Andy's serve is not less effective, he is holding 93% of the time and leads the tour in this respect. On a point-to-point level, maybe fewer players are intimidated by his serve, but if he's still holding, that really doesn't matter all that much.

His problem since the middle/end of last year into this year is not that people can get his serve back, it's that his return has not improved as much as some of the other aspects of his game, and also that he is losing tiebreaks and close matches that he used to win. That is not technical, IMO. and IMO this is more mental than technical. He does not have the confidence he had a couple of years ago, and this is magnified when matches get tight and in tiebreaks.

Now, I am not suggesting that Andy doesn't still have areas in his game that need technical improvement. I'm just saying that right now, his problem is more mental. He won far more matches far easier with a far more technically deficient game. Last week, I went to a challenger and saw a guy with all the shots play - Amer Delic - his shots are good, but it's the mental inconsistency that hurt him - the mental aspect is so huge in a sport like tennis. That is Andy's problem right now. And until he starts going for his shots better and handling the tough aspects better, it doesn't matter how much better his backhand or volley or whatever is.

Fee
11-03-2005, 12:03 AM
Raise your hand if you're an ATP player who would like to be having as bad a year as Andy is this season?

Wait, I can't count with all of you guys jumping around like that. Sit down for a second already... sheesh...




(Sjengster, you rock my world at this moment. :cool: )

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 12:09 AM
Those two errors on his serve in the tiebreak against Dent today did seem completely mental/symptomatic of low confidence; one forehand weakly in the net, another one weakly into the sidelines, for no apparent reason other than the pressure of the score.

Thinking about Tourmalante's last point, that Roddick had a lot of dominating weapons as a junior but wasn't given the strategy needed to be dominant in the pro ranks, he actually compares very favourably to the vast majority of very good juniors who failed to live up to expectations on the main tour. If a Slam and year-end no. 1 are a failure, whither Zabaleta, Kristian Pless, Daniel Elsner and (chortle) Martin Lee? I gather the illustrious Julien Jeanpierre was junior no. 3 in 1998, the year Federer was dominating that circuit. Zabaleta I think had a 40-2 record in one year as a junior, and rather like Blake in college tennis, you get the feeling he could dominate everyone else with his forehand but when he moved up a level to a tour where strategy and fitness were of paramount importance, he was found wanting. There is some of this in Roddick too, but looking at junior no. 1s of the past 10 to 15 years, surely it is only Federer who has had a superior senior career thus far?

mangoes
11-03-2005, 12:14 AM
As someone who doesn't consider themself partial to either Andy or Federer, I must say that I don't think the hardcore fans of Roddick ever denied that Federer is the better player. You say that tennis is a game of geometry, of strategy, basically a game of more than just a big serve -- this is true, but tennis is one of the most mental sports out there, and it's quite obvious (to any tennis enthusiast) that one large chunk of Andy's mental side is missing; the confidence is gone.
;)


Andy's confidence is definitely gone and I think that is having a significant effect on his game. I don't know what Andy needs right now, but I definitely hope he finds whatever he needs very soon. :)

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 12:14 AM
Those two errors on his serve in the tiebreak against Dent today did seem completely mental/symptomatic of low confidence; one forehand weakly in the net, another one weakly into the sidelines, for no apparent reason other than the pressure of the score.This was my point exactly.

I mean, sure there are players who are simply better than he is - Federer, a ton of players who move and play better on clay, etc. etc. And surely there are times when he has played well but been outplayed on the day by someone playing great.

But as you said, a tiebreak like today, or a DF on a set point in a TB or whatever the case may be, that's mental, that's HIS problem, that's not someone else being better than he is at that particular moment. And we know that's true because we know he didn't used to be like that. His tiebreak recrord this year is barely over .500, even in 2001 when all he was was a serve and forehand, he did better than that.

Also, if you really watch his playing, even when a player appears to be playing fantastically (think the USO match against Muller), you have to look at Andy's shots - in that match he was hitting his shots so tentatively, they were landing like, at the service line, of course Muller (or anyone else half-decent) would be able to step in and bang winners off of fluffy shots like that.

A lot of us have thought about this stuff extensively all year long. I am absolutely 100% convinced it's mental at this point. And until he can get his head about him and close matches like he should and stuff, I don't even think the technical problems that are still remaining in his game matter that much, b/c I think if he can't even play the bread-and-butter of his game well right now, the other stuff is not important.

Jimnik
11-03-2005, 12:18 AM
Those two errors on his serve in the tiebreak against Dent today did seem completely mental/symptomatic of low confidence; one forehand weakly in the net, another one weakly into the sidelines, for no apparent reason other than the pressure of the score.

Exactly. Those shots brought back memories of when he was serving at 5-3 up for the 1st set against Muller at Flushing Meadows.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 12:20 AM
Exactly. Those shots brought back memories of when he was serving at 5-3 up for the 1st set against Muller at Flushing Meadows.:sad:

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 12:25 AM
It was a strange mental blank indeed, and it happens so quickly. That's why you see people winning tiebreaks 7-1 and 7-2 against Roddick, because they can get a couple of points on his serve early on and then hold their service points fairly routinely from there.

I actually think, in a way, it was Muller's go-for-broke style of play that made Roddick hit so short and passively against him - he seemed to be a little intimidated at times, when of course the absolute key against a tall power merchant like Muller who likes to take big cuts at the ball off both sides is to step up on the baseline and get him on the move instead. But then all of that tentative play only really started after he had blown the 5-3 lead in the first set, and Muller only began to play with self-belief after he had been let back into the match. I remember he conceded the break rather lazily a couple of games before that, and seemed resigned to his fate; but even then, there were signs that Roddick's poor returning of the Muller serve, especially that one swinging down the T to his backhand on the deuce side, could come back to haunt him.

Jimnik
11-03-2005, 12:29 AM
:sad:
I know. :banghead: Sorry I brought it up. :sad:

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 12:33 AM
I know. :banghead: Sorry I brought it up. :sad:It's ok :p

Sjengster, that may be, but he's beaten plenty of lefties with big serves before and returned them quite well, he's returned big righty serves well, too, and while players like that pose problems for lots of players, he's certainly beat players who have a go-for-broke style of play. Maybe he didn't return well that night and that's one thing, but I don't see how that translates into him hitting a routine forehand at the service line instead of 6in inside the baseline. I guess I'm just trying to say that Andy has beaten players like that before. And I also believe that if he had held serve and taken the first set 6-3 that the match would likely not have turned out the same way. And it's pretty accepted on here, from what I've seen anyway, that Andy really did give back that break of serve. So it's very arguably all going back to his mental problems in some way or another. IMO it really started to get bad at last year's USO when he lost serve against PimPim after being up 40-0 and double faulting in that game. That was sort of the straw that broke his confidence's back, IMO. It was starting before that (really since he won the USO), but that's when I think it really took a nose-dive.

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 12:44 AM
Well, even in his heyday two years ago he had the same sort of problems at the US Open - against Ljubicic (passive returning too far behind the baseline, giving the latter more options on the serve) and against Nalbandian (again, very passive court positioning for the first three sets, in which he knocked balls tamely back into play and Naba dictated virtually all the rallies). Obviously he got through those matches while displaying these weaknesses and he didn't this year, showing that the mind and confidence are very important things, but at the same time I would argue that you can't be too confident in a match situation when you know that the weaknesses in your game are still there and that they're going to let you down at some stage or another. This I suppose is something of a chicken and egg scenario, arguing about which aspect affects which first.

I remember that game, what must really have broken his confidence is that Aussie Pim had virtually given it up and then unleashed two incredible (arguably fluked) returns down the line in the five-point stretch that got him the break. Roddick can surely never have had such a long streak of winning points on serve in a match he's eventually lost - wasn't it 20 points in a row at one stage, in the third and fourth set? And then I recall Johansson suddenly found another devastating return out of nowhere in the final game of the match that helped him get to 0-40. That's the kind of intimidation I'm talking about, but I won't deny that Roddick suddenly collapsed under pressure, as witnessed with the routine backhand floated long on the last point.

tangerine_dream
11-03-2005, 01:27 AM
:rolleyes:
You really need to shorten the crap you write. Not everyone can be bothered to read all this nonsense. :yawn:
I didn't even bother reading past the first paragraph.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 01:42 AM
Sjengster, great posts. You amazed me, indeed.


I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player.

Oh ok. Thanks for your huge contribution in the boards. Are you done? Can you leave? Ok.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 01:57 AM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 02:02 AM
Go Bulls

nkhera1
11-03-2005, 02:03 AM
It was a strange mental blank indeed, and it happens so quickly. That's why you see people winning tiebreaks 7-1 and 7-2 against Roddick, because they can get a couple of points on his serve early on and then hold their service points fairly routinely from there.

I actually think, in a way, it was Muller's go-for-broke style of play that made Roddick hit so short and passively against him - he seemed to be a little intimidated at times, when of course the absolute key against a tall power merchant like Muller who likes to take big cuts at the ball off both sides is to step up on the baseline and get him on the move instead. But then all of that tentative play only really started after he had blown the 5-3 lead in the first set, and Muller only began to play with self-belief after he had been let back into the match. I remember he conceded the break rather lazily a couple of games before that, and seemed resigned to his fate; but even then, there were signs that Roddick's poor returning of the Muller serve, especially that one swinging down the T to his backhand on the deuce side, could come back to haunt him.


Roddick has always had trouble with lefties because their forehands go into his backhand which is clearly his weaker shot. As for his forehand as of late (like the whole year) it has been pretty bad usually landing within one foot of the service line as opposed to one foot of the baseline as it should be with all the topspin he uses. Andy's serve seems fine to me. Sure more people are returning it, but he it is still one of the undisputed best and even though his game may not be the best who has really done anything besides Fed and Rafa?

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2005, 02:17 AM
Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.

Even though I am not a fan of Roddick's, I don't hate him either. In fact, he has grown on me thsi last year. In any case, there are very few Roddick fans who still believe Roddick is the best player and it is only a matter of time before he finds his game again.

What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour.

Erroneous opinion? Anyway, in the summer of 2003, Roddick was as dominant a player that has ever played on the ATP tour. It wasn't an entire season and Federer proved by the end of the year that he was probably the best player in the world and then consolidated it at the 2004 AO. That doesn't take anything away from what Roddick did from Queens through the USO. There were very few players during that stretch that could even give Roddick a battle. Henman, Fed, Nalby...not too many more.

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2005, 02:23 AM
His problem since the middle/end of last year into this year is not that people can get his serve back, it's that his return has not improved as much as some of the other aspects of his game, and also that he is losing tiebreaks and close matches that he used to win. That is not technical, IMO. and IMO this is more mental than technical. He does not have the confidence he had a couple of years ago, and this is magnified when matches get tight and in tiebreaks.

This and his lack of serious improvement on the BH side. He can rarely get into an advantageous position once pinned to his BH.

The other thing is that he doesn't have enough confidence in his FH. In 2003 and into 2004, if he got a FH that he didn't stretch too, 99% of the tour was in big ass trouble. Now he kind of hits this topsin loopy thing that is not very effective. He rips one every once in a while but not with the same conviction that he once did. His inside-out FH of 2003 was one of the biggest shots I've ever seen. Time and time again he would clobber that thing and the point was his. Look at his FH's against Muller in many of the rallies. Loopy, short, etc.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 02:31 AM
Almost any player can have a hot streak of three months or so. Hell, Ljubicic has had two hot streaks this year albeit of a lesser caliber. If we go back in the archives we can probably see that headcases as screwed up as Rios and Leconte had hot streaks of comparable length.
It is sustained excellence that characterizes a truly dominant player. When we come down to it, besides a few more titles(and yes some of them are TMSs) and a stronger career at the slams what separates Roddick from Tojo? Can we point to one match where Roddick outclassed a player of his caliber or greater(and both were at the height of their powers) in his whole career? It is not enough to simply remain in the top five if you know deep down that you are the weakest link among them.
Seriously, I don't really think those ranked above him really even consider him as much of a threat. They know he is still dangerous but it becomes an issue of containment. They are like the older brother in a sibling spat who simply holds the younger one(Andy) back by the head while he punches thin air and then delivers the knockout blow at leisure. The only future hall of famer Andy has a decent record against are Safin (and Safin got him at the most important venue, the AO) and Nadal(you know that series will change fast).

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 02:32 AM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

I refuted an awful lot of your comments, but the exchange was rather too short to be considered a bout, I agree. I also concur that this board has far too many of the regrettable cliched topics you mention, but I don't understand how you can condemn them and then add to them with one of the most hackneyed subjects ever discussed on MTF. People were holding forth about the Roddick game long before he actually became a top player, and there was nothing in your first post that I haven't seen in some form or another over the past couple of years.

What these forums need are fewer people announcing their iconoclastic intentions and more people actually carrying them out - I include myself in this too. Challenge other posters with something a little more original and inventive than "Roddick stole no. 1 in 2003 and he's sucked this year and everyone can return his serve and he drowned my cat", etc.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 02:40 AM
No one on this board, not even the biggest fans, ever said he was dominant, even in 2003. Don't put words into our mouths, that's not fair. Do I think he deserved to end 2003 at #1? Yes, I do. But do I think that he was far and away the very best player of the year heads and shoulders above the rest? Of course not, and nor have I, or anyone I've ever seen on this board in the past two years, said anything to that effect. You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority. First of all, if you knew anything about Sjengster, or anyone on this board, you'd know he hates Andy, and you'd know that a lot of us don't get along with him that well, or at least haven't in the past. So the fact that not only is Sjengster semi-defending Andy but we are agreeing with him is a testament to the things you have said in this thread, not to any of us.

Moreover, if you bothered to go to ANDY's forum on this board, since you seem to be judging ANDY and his fans, you would know that we have said many of these things many many times over throughout this season. We have long, mature, rational, and intellectual discussions about his game and the problems he's having this year. Do not justify your obvious lack of research by insulting our ability to have such provocative and meaningful discussions. So how dare you judge the Andy fans on this board if you have so clearly not taken any time to read the substance of what we say in his forum. And there are people who are quite openly not fans of his who join us to have these conversations and discussions.

So if you'd like to join us, you are more than welcome, but I feel like I can speak for most of the MTF Andy fans when I say we do not appreciate being accused of teenyboppers who only like Andy for his looks. If my favorite players were determined by their looks, Andy wouldn't be my favorite, and that is all I will say about that. Are there some fans and MTF posters who seem to only like his looks? Sure, of course. Go to AR.com for that as there are very few of those people here.

As for your first post in this thread that people have commented on: I'm a law student, all I do all day long is read semi-unintelligible court cases and so I certainly have the patience and stamina to read a long work of prose. Your post was reaching those proportions. Maybe if you put a whole space line between each paragraph it would have been less daunting :)

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 02:45 AM
I must admit, it's been a long time (in fact, this is probably the first time) since I got six consecutive good reps from Roddick fans. ;) But in all honesty, I just thought that a lot of what Tourmalante said was demonstrably wrong.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 02:46 AM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

You know absolutely no one in here, so honestly, you can't judge at all.
I don't need to show you anything at all, since the comments about Roddick's game, etc, that I make I usually make them in Roddick's forum, not here in GM where they won't be well appreciated.
I've been a hardcore Roddick fan for two years already, I seriously doubt I would still stick to him because of his looks, etc, when there are much better looking guys on tour or in the world.

And seriously, who do you think you are? The best thing since chocolate? More people like you and less people like the others? What do you know about 'the others' anyway? As far as I know, you can be the worst person since Bush whereas said 'others' can be the best people ever.

No one judges women that like tennis, but once they say a comment about one player being hot/cute/attractive? All sorts of comments like "You just like tennis for men", "You just watch tennis to drool on the players" appear. I don't expect you to go and drool over a male player unless that is your preference, but I want you to come and tell me you have never jerked off thinking of Maria Sharapova, Anna Kournikova, Daniela Hantuchova, or whoever you might have the hots for. Seriously.

Oh and you would never win a popularity contest since, I don't know if you have noticed but, no one agrees with you.

I have read what you said, and I truly feel and think it's a load of shit. If you wanna come and trash Roddick, fine, join the club, there are plenty who will support you, but at the very least be funny, people here don't really enjoy jokes like the stuff you said.

For example, we, Roddick fans, never stated the fact Roger is better than Andy in any possible way because there is no need to do it, really. But the thing is, Roger is not only better than Andy, he's better than every single player in the tour. The fact that Andy has made it to so many finals in order to play him so many times and therefore have such an awful record against him doesn't mean any other player would go through the same if he were in Andy's position. But that's only more credit for Andy, because he actually manages to reach finals more often than others (excluding Rafa, of course.)

Mickey Mouse tourneys? Ok, yes, and we have accepted it alright. But yeah last time I checked Roger and Rafa were the only ones that had won TMS this year and GS, excepting Marat whose year has come downhill since then, basically.
And yes, Andre and Lleyton haven't won any more than he has, honestly.

But I think we all agree on the fact Andy is going through a tremendous mental crisis and even though fixing that might not help him regain the #1 spot, or even beat Roger, it would help him win tight matches easily, and even avoid having tight matches. He needs his confidence back, because Andy's technical game is at it's best. His BH in 2003 was pathetic, let alone his volleys. The difference is huge. But the thing is that his confidence and mentality is depriving him from using those now improved skills, pretty much.

But anyway, what do you know about Dean Goldfine? If you knew anything you'd realise he actually does know about volleys since he's helped Andy improve his.

And yes, we all know Andy's not gonna become a serve/vollley player anytime soon :rolleyes:


Yeah well, you wrote all that crap and we read it, not you'll read mine. It's only fair.

liptea
11-03-2005, 02:47 AM
The difference though, is that at her peak Venus was dominant so fans have a benchmark to compare her against and have some idea that she is vastly underachieving given her true capabilities. In comparison Andy only has a slam and to his name.

lmfao. only a slam (and a davis cup final and two wimbledon finals and a consistent top five ranking and oops i forgot his masters). what a loser!

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 02:48 AM
I must admit, it's been a long time (in fact, this is probably the first time) since I got six consecutive good reps from Roddick fans. ;) But in all honesty, I just thought that a lot of what Tourmalante said was demonstrably wrong.There's a first time for everything ;)

I figure, if Becca and I can become friends, surely anything is possible :)

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 02:48 AM
No one on this board, not even the biggest fans, ever said he was dominant, even in 2003. Don't put words into our mouths, that's not fair. D I think he deserved to end 2003 at #1? Yes, I do. But do I think that he was far and away the very best player of the year heads and shoulders above the rest? Of course not, and nor have I, or anyone I've ever seen on this board in the past two years, said anything to that effect. First of all, if you knew anything about Sjengster, or anyone on this board, you'd know he hates Andy, and you'd know that a lot of us don't get along with him that well, or at least haven't in the past. So the fact that not only is Sjengster semi-defending Andy but we are agreeing with him is a testament to the things you have said in this thread, not to any of us.

Moreover, if you bothered to go to ANDY's forum on this board, since you seem to be judging ANDY and his fans, you would know that we have said many of these things many many times over throughout this season. We have long, mature, rational, and intellectual discussions about his game and the problems he's having this year. Do not justify your obvious lack of research by insulting our ability to have such provocative and meaningful discussions. So how dare you judge the Andy fans on this board if you have so clearly not taken any time to read the substance of what we say in his forum. And there are people who are quite openly not fans of his who join us to have these conversations and discussions.

So if you'd like to join us, you are more than welcome, but I feel like I can speak for most of the MTF Andy fans when I say we do not appreciate being accused of teenyboppers who only like Andy for his looks. If my favorite players were determined by their looks, Andy wouldn't be my favorite, and that is all I will say about that. Are there some fans and MTF posters who seem to only like his looks? Sure, of course. Go to AR.com for that as there are very few of those people here.

As for your first post in this thread that people have commented on: I'm a law student, all I do all day long is read semi-unintelligible court cases and so I certainly have the patience and stamina to read a long work of prose. Your post was reaching those proportions. Maybe if you put a whole space line between each paragraph it would have been less daunting :)

Deb, you never cease to impress me :lol: :worship:

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 02:55 AM
I refuted an awful lot of your comments, but the exchange was rather too short to be considered a bout, I agree. I also concur that this board has far too many of the regrettable cliched topics you mention, but I don't understand how you can condemn them and then add to them with one of the most hackneyed subjects ever discussed on MTF. People were holding forth about the Roddick game long before he actually became a top player, and there was nothing in your first post that I haven't seen in some form or another over the past couple of years.

What these forums need are fewer people announcing their iconoclastic intentions and more people actually carrying them out - I include myself in this too. Challenge other posters with something a little more original and inventive than "Roddick stole no. 1 in 2003 and he's sucked this year and everyone can return his serve and he drowned my cat", etc.

"I refuted an awful lot of your comments"-Well I'll just let sleeping dogs lie. Anyway yes, this ground has been treaded many times in regards to Roddick and his game but I grew tired of hearing comments from some of his advocates and decided to bring up the already rehashed topic again, and who can complain as no one ever seems tired of writing on the subject. But last time I tried to write something original it had probably two posts before it was submerged under the deluge of mindless threads flooding these forums. So in order to get some response I was forced to this.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 02:57 AM
"I refuted an awful lot of your comments"-Well I'll just let sleeping dogs lie. Anyway yes, this ground has been treaded many times in regards to Roddick and his game but I grew tired of hearing comments from some of his advocates and decided to bring up the already rehashed topic again, and who can complain as no one ever seems tired of writing on the subject. But last time I tried to write something original it had probably two posts before it was submerged under the deluge of mindless threads flooding these forums. So in order to get some response I was forced to this.Please answer my question. Have you been to the Andy Roddick forum on this message board and read our discussions about his game?

Sjengster
11-03-2005, 02:58 AM
Well, I can sympathise with that at least. I sometimes feel there should be an automatic ban imposed on all threads containing the words "Roger", "Rafa", "crotch", "pics", "Who would you like to have sex with?" etc. It would clear out an awful lot of detritus from GM, but I still maintain that the subject of this thread is treading a very familiar and worn path indeed.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 02:59 AM
Please answer my question. Have you been to the Andy Roddick forum on this message board and read our discussions about his game?

ME ME ME ME! Choose me, Miss Deb! I know the answer! Me Me!

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:03 AM
Well, I can sympathise with that at least. I sometimes feel there should be an automatic ban imposed on all threads containing the words "Roger", "Rafa", "crotch", "pics", "Who would you like to have sex with?" etc. It would clear out an awful lot of detritus from GM, but I still maintain that the subject of this thread is treading a very familiar and worn path indeed.This is all true, but it has no relevance on Roddick fans' inability to have a discussion about the problems in his game, as this is what we are being accused of.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:07 AM
I am not debating the fact that among any group of fans there are those who realistically and thoughtfully speak about the various fault's of their player's game. More power to you. I do find it hard to believe though that you would not agree that there is a faction of Roddick fans who subscribe to the very views I was criticizing earlier.
And to the poster who found it necessary to inform me of their profession and how they tirelessly read briefs similar to my post I say-I did not need to know that information. It doesn't impress me, and is a lame attempt at insulting me rather than writing something.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:11 AM
I am not debating the fact that among any group of fans there are those who realistically and thoughtfully speak about the various fault's of their player's game. More power to you. I do find it hard to believe though that you would not agree that there is a faction of Roddick fans who subscribe to the very views I was criticizing earlier.
And to the poster who found it necessary to inform me of their profession and how they tirelessly read briefs similar to my post I say-I did not need to know that information. It doesn't impress me, and is a lame attempt at insulting me rather than writing something.

Ooooh, someone backing out? ;)

Yes, and most of them are in AR.com. I would dare to say all of them are there.
You might wanna post this thing you posted here in www.andyroddick.com's forums.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:12 AM
Moreover, if you bothered to go to ANDY's forum on this board, since you seem to be judging ANDY and his fans, you would know that we have said many of these things many many times over throughout this season. We have long, mature, rational, and intellectual discussions about his game and the problems he's having this year. Do not justify your obvious lack of research by insulting our ability to have such provocative and meaningful discussions. So how dare you judge the Andy fans on this board if you have so clearly not taken any time to read the substance of what we say in his forum. And there are people who are quite openly not fans of his who join us to have these conversations and discussions.
Thank you, Deb. :bigclap:

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:12 AM
I am not debating the fact that among any group of fans there are those who realistically and thoughtfully speak about the various fault's of their player's game. More power to you. I do find it hard to believe though that you would not agree that there is a faction of Roddick fans who subscribe to the very views I was criticizing earlier. Then perhaps you should have been clearer with your many and continued accusations about us. These shallow stupid fans you're talking about may exist, but they don't exist here. So your posts were insulting to all of us as a group.
And to the poster who found it necessary to inform me of their profession and how they tirelessly read briefs similar to my post I say-I did not need to know that information. It doesn't impress me, and is a lame attempt at insulting me rather than writing something.That was me. I was not trying to insult you but merely refute your accusation that we are attention-deficit and didn't feel like reading your posts, since I read crap much worse than your posts every day. Then, I merely suggested that if you spaced out your paragraphs that they would be easier to read. If you took that as an insult, you are a rather sensitive person.

Anyway, this is not worth my time anymore :)

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2005, 03:14 AM
Almost any player can have a hot streak of three months or so. Hell, Ljubicic has had two hot streaks this year albeit of a lesser caliber. If we go back in the archives we can probably see that headcases as screwed up as Rios and Leconte had hot streaks of comparable length.
It is sustained excellence that characterizes a truly dominant player. When we come down to it, besides a few more titles(and yes some of them are TMSs) and a stronger career at the slams what separates Roddick from Tojo? Can we point to one match where Roddick outclassed a player of his caliber or greater(and both were at the height of their powers) in his whole career? It is not enough to simply remain in the top five if you know deep down that you are the weakest link among them.

Nobody is saying that Roddick is the dominant player of his generation. Yes, any player can get on a hot streak, but there are few hot streaks that last through a Slam and two TMS events. VERY FEW. He was dominant uring that stretch and so many people thought that there was so much for him to accomplish in the future.

As for sustained excellence, Roddick is the only player on tour to have won multiple titles in the last 5 years. If he wins 3 more matches this year, he is the only player along with Fed to have won 60+ matches in each of the past 3 years. He has lacked big match wins but there has been sustained excellence from him. If you want to compare him with King Fed, of course he comes up short. So does everyone else.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:19 AM
[QUOTE]

I have seen plenty of Roddick fans saying that he needs to get his confidence and game back. I have seen virtually none saying that this will then magically result in him toppling Federer from the no. 1 ranking and automatically becoming the dominant force in the game. They're well aware of the scale of the challenge he faces.

Go to the forums at www.andyroddick.com


It was a tight contest that year, and obviously his year-end no. 1 finish depended an awful lot on Ferrero stinking up the joint at the end of the year when he had big points on the line. But he certainly had a better overall year than Federer, who only closed the gap between them in the rankings in the last tournament of the year by winning it undefeated.


Roddick won the #1 spot for 2003 in terms of points, but I am talking about the qualitative opinions of the players on the tour and the aura around Roddick that year. I know that this is somewhat shaky ground to talk about because we are dealing with feelings and perceptions rather than numbers, but how many of us will agree with the statement that the Roddick of 2003 was comparable to the Mac of 81, the Lendl and becker of 87 and 89, the Sampras of 94, in other words truly dominant players of particular years.



Why pick on Roddick specifically when no-one else outside the top two besides Safin has been able to win a required event this year? Everyone in the Top 10 has been falling to Federer or Nadal at some stage. Do Agassi and Hewitt deserve their Top 5 rankings with one Mickey Mouse title each? Plus your resume of Roddick's year does leave out the semis at the AO, semis at IW, final in Cincy... yes, European clay was a dead loss as usual, but see the two men mentioned above for more of the same.



Again, I could be more egalitarian in my criticism, but it takes a lot longer to lambast the entire tour for their ineptitude. Why not start small?




Ah, so THAT explains his current 85-game holding streak... they can all figure out his serve now. I do agree that his serve is not the best on tour for several reasons, one being that it can be blocked back into play with regularity by skilled enough returners, but there are very few of those around who can do it on a consistent basis. All the players whom he has suffered early losses to this year, Mathieu, Muller, Karlovic, have serious game of one sort or another. Karlovic certainly did not beat Roddick because he found it easy to return the serve - it was because Roddick had no real clue to returning his.


Come on, Ljubicic was on an even better hold streak just a week or so ago. I guess we can call him a dominant player now too.


This is the only part I generally agree with. I wonder how Roddick would have developed if he had not discovered his huge serve by accident at the age of 16 or 17, because by all accounts as a junior he was something of a baseline scrapper/grinder who had to work hard for his points, for all his forehand power. This style still reasserts itself when he moves too far behind the baseline and plays too passively, meaning that he becomes an odd hybrid of all-out big serving aggression and tentative, looping groundstroker. That said, I am not about to declare a man who has only just turned 23 dead in the water.

And here you agree with me. If that is a refutation, I can't wait to see the posts that compliment me.

acoffeygirl
11-03-2005, 03:20 AM
"I refuted an awful lot of your comments"-Well I'll just let sleeping dogs lie. Anyway yes, this ground has been treaded many times in regards to Roddick and his game but I grew tired of hearing comments from some of his advocates and decided to bring up the already rehashed topic again, and who can complain as no one ever seems tired of writing on the subject. But last time I tried to write something original it had probably two posts before it was submerged under the deluge of mindless threads flooding these forums. So in order to get some response I was forced to this.

So basically you were just looking for a reaction and for people to respond to you? And....unless someone has a gun to your head, I'm pretty sure no one forced you to do this!

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:22 AM
:rolleyes:

Obviously this thread was created to generate V-Cash. Otherwise it's completely useless unless Tourmalante wants to keep a record of being PWNED.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:23 AM
And here you agree with me. If that is a refutation, I can't wait to see the posts that compliment me.

Oh please tell me you're being sarcastic, please. I am really trying hard to take you seriously, dont screw it.

superpinkone37
11-03-2005, 03:26 AM
Well, this thread was an interesting read. And I'm not going to go into a long, rambling post because I think everything that needed to be said already has been posted, so I'll leave it at that.

That said,
Sjengster :worship:
Deb and Caro :smooch:

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:28 AM
:hug: Dani

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:30 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 03:31 AM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

Since when is having ADD a crime?

I hate your posts because they are utter crap.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:32 AM
Ok, this is it.

You're on crack.

Feels so good to say it.

partygirl
11-03-2005, 03:32 AM
yeah, what deb said.

damn it i cant believe im here again i just want to say that you offend me Tourmalante...not that you care.

i have no problem admiting that i think andy is a beautiful man...if you asked me to draw up what a perfect man would LOOK like i would draw andy- and from time to time i like to objectify him- im a human being & an honest one at that especially with my feelings.

this in no way impeads my ability to love andy for his game, his talent and his trying- because i do
not only that his talent (not his ass) has opened my eyes to something i probbly would have never payed much attention to TENNIS and now i cant imagine my life without tennis in it- and not just andy matches but tennis in general- thats a gift i appricate and a gift that will motivate me to be a fan of his for life.

however i have no problem being critical of andy because everyone needs it and he deserves it at times and i dont shy away from it (or expressing it here) just because he's beautiful to me.
he's not perfect and he has flaws of many-(as do i ...and yourself id suspect)
the difference is he knows it and is working on it...
i think thats the most you can ask of any human being-

i may not spend time debating forhands and backhands volley's and pace and topspin and comparing stats and scores -serves and aces breakpoints and those saved, but sir that in no way makes me illagitamate or excuseable...because that i will not tolerate.

im just as good as you are.
andy is just as good as roger
maybe not in everyway, and probbly not the ways you are thinking but nobodys perfect...and your original post in this thread makes that perfectly clear- cause your way off...pal :kiss::kiss:

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 03:33 AM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

This may be one of the most arrogant and pretentious postings I have read on MTF. As Debstah and others have pointed out, you clearly have not visited the Roddick forum and read the discussions presented therein. If you had, you would have found that many Roddick fans are quite realistic about his talent, his ability and his performances over the past eighteen months. We have raised questions over the passivity of his shots, his court positioning, and his possible need for some sports psychology.

Is my support of Roddick based on his looks and his witty one-liners? Hardly! As someone old enough to be Andy's father, his looks are irrelevant to me. As someone who works daily with intelligent people grappling with difficult issues, I hear better and wittier one-liners over lunch.

I support Roddick because he (usually) shows passion and excitement for the game of tennis, and because he gets it that his role includes selling the sport of tennis to the American public. Having come of age when American men's tennis was dominated by the churlish Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, it is refreshing to have the top American player understand his responsibility to the sport. In fact, I think Roddick short-changes himself because he spends to much time promoting the sport.

Maybe Roddick's rise to the top in 2003 was just an extended hot streak. However, that description does not remove the fact that Andy Roddick reached #1 in the world -- something very few professional tennis players acheive.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:34 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.Oh, that makes sense. You accuse people of liking someone for his looks and sense of humor, yet you just stereotyped and judged and insulted a large group of people. So tell me, considering some of the people who posted in this thread are from England, Argentina, and the Philippines.... what was your point?

I love hypocrisy :)

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 03:34 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.
If you honestly go the andy forum right now, you will see that we are not like "good job andy, all that matters is that you won! omg yay!"
We tear apart the poor boy.

superpinkone37
11-03-2005, 03:34 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.
I have no signature, I'm American and....so are you? :confused:
That makes no sense dude.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:35 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.
All I have to do is read your posts to know you're just trolling. :rolleyes:

liptea
11-03-2005, 03:36 AM
yo quiero lamer a carlos moya

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:40 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.

My nationaly? I believe being Argentinean has nothing to do with liking Roddick. Hell, I'm even more used to people that don't like him.

And me? Open mind? You obviously know shit about me.

My god, not many people have made me want to bang their head on a wall. But you certainly do. Jesus.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:42 AM
I have no signature, I'm American and....so are you? :confused:
That makes no sense dude.

You are the exception here. Take a look at the majority of the pro-Andy posters in this thread.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:43 AM
You are the exception here. Take a look at the majority of the pro-Andy posters in this thread.Your point? The only mention of Andy in my sig is a dis on him and making fun of him. Same for my av.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 03:43 AM
hmmm.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:44 AM
My nationaly? I believe being Argentinean has nothing to do with liking Roddick. Hell, I'm even more used to people that don't like him.

And me? Open mind? You obviously know shit about me.

My god, not many people have made me want to bang their head on a wall. But you certainly do. Jesus.

Carito, I think I said nationalities AND signatures. Now take a look at your signature and see if there is a word that looks like Roddick there. It may be a little hard to see.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:44 AM
You are the exception here. Take a look at the majority of the pro-Andy posters in this thread.
Your point is? Come on, quit dancing around it. Just tell us directly what you meant by that. Please.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:44 AM
Carito, I think I said nationalities AND signatures. Now take a look at your signature and see if there is a word that looks like Roddick there. It may be a little hard to see.Objection: relevance?

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 03:45 AM
Carito, I think I said nationalities AND signatures. Now take a look at your signature and see if there is a word that looks like Roddick there. It may be a little hard to see.
help me find mine.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:45 AM
Okay, okay. I'm going to try to get this before I drive myself insane.

I have a signature that basically says I like the pairing Kim and Andy. I think they'd look cute together. Ok. Then I have the players I like, as everybody else in this board. Ok. Nothing to do with everything you've said.

I live in Argentina. Um... let me guess. Oh! Bush is coming over here tomorrow! That's the similarity? No wait... that has nothing to do with Andy. Damnit.

Yeah no I don't get it.

superpinkone37
11-03-2005, 03:47 AM
You are the exception here. Take a look at the majority of the pro-Andy posters in this thread.
Okay...well, I know most of the people you're talking about very well, some of them even personally. For you to judge them based on their signatures or by a few posts in this thread is pretty lame.

For all you know, I'm a regular at ar.com and can post
":hearts: oMg hE'Ss sSoOo HoTt!!!11123 :hearts:"
with the best of 'em. ;)

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:48 AM
Your point? The only mention of Andy in my sig is a dis on him and making fun of him. Same for my av.

Again another individual poster tells me I'm wrong because my posts describe attributes of certain andy fans that do not fit their individual criteria. Of course this happens. That's why I have to speak in generalities. If I knew that simply adding the word "some" when I spoke of Roddick's fans would calm the tempers of many here I would have done so.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:50 AM
Again another individual poster tells me I'm wrong because my posts describe attributes of certain andy fans that do not fit their individual criteria. Of course this happens. That's why I have to speak in generalities. If I knew that simply adding the word "some" when I spoke of Roddick's fans would calm the tempers of many here I would have done so.You do not have to speak in generalizations. No one is holding a gun to your head. In fact, not only do you not have to speak in generalizations, you can't even point to a single specific thing any Andy fan here has said that even supports your view of us. Thus, your generalization is apparently wholly inaccurate and quite clearly unnecessary.

superpinkone37
11-03-2005, 03:51 AM
So one or two out of ten means majority now?
I need to go back to Stats class. :sad:

I don't mean to pick on you, dude, but you're making it too easy.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:51 AM
Dude, I don't think you even know what you mean. :o I'm embarrassed for you.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 03:51 AM
Again another individual poster tells me I'm wrong because my posts describe attributes of certain andy fans that do not fit their individual criteria. Of course this happens. That's why I have to speak in generalities. If I knew that simply adding the word "some" when I spoke of Roddick's fans would calm the tempers of many here I would have done so.
Well then just mention names. Jeez. Because that "some" is more like 1 or 2.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 03:53 AM
AAAAAH I GOT IT!

I like Andy, thats why I wouldn't have responded this objectivly?

Yeah no, if that was the problem I would have said "I love andy and he's the best period end of discussion" yet I gave you several items about what's wrong with his game.

Sjeng is not even a Roddick fan, he hates Andy, yet he doesn't agree with the load of bashing you said. And that's saying something.

You gotta understand something, kid. We. Do. Not. Agree. With. You.
Get over it.

tangerine_dream
11-03-2005, 03:53 AM
This may be one of the most arrogant and pretentious postings I have read on MTF. As Debstah and others have pointed out, you clearly have not visited the Roddick forum and read the discussions presented therein.
He obviously based his entire "argument" on maybe a couple of posts he read over at Roddick's official site but certainly nothing from here. :lol: I find it curious why he would he try to refute comments made on an unrelated site (notice he didn't refer to any specific posts, just made a generalized, sweeping assumption) by posting his reply on MTF instead?

Anyhoo, thanks for the entertainment Tourmalante, MTF Arse Clown of 2006. :yeah:

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:56 AM
Tourmalante, MTF Arse Clown of 2006.
I second that motion. :yeah:

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:00 AM
Tourmalante violů a Carlos Moya

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:00 AM
Simply the fact that my posts have caused such a vociferous backlash means I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. An earlier middle-aged poster said that he likes Roddick because of the passion he exhibits for the game and his cognizance of the fact that it needs to be sold to the masses of casual sports fans who are more accustomed to watching basketball, baseball, golf, etc. When you speak of passion do you mean outward displays of emotion? I doubt Roddick is truly more passionate for the game of tennis than any of the other player on tour though he may be better at vocalizing his passion. The best way that Andy can sell the game to American sportswatchers is by winning matches on the biggest stages and not by entertaining crowds.
When you look at Roddick's career thus far, how would you compare him to other American greats such as Connor's, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras at similar ages? Do you think he has shown himself worthy of the mantle they carried or is he on a lesser tier?

jole
11-03-2005, 04:02 AM
Simply the fact that my posts have caused such a vociferous backlash means I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. An earlier middle-aged poster said that he likes Roddick because of the passion he exhibits for the game and his cognizance of the fact that it needs to be sold to the masses of casual sports fans who are more accustomed to watching basketball, baseball, golf, etc. When you speak of passion do you mean outward displays of emotion? I doubt Roddick is truly more passionate for the game of tennis than any of the other player on tour though he may be better at vocalizing his passion. The best way that Andy can sell the game to American sportswatchers is by winning matches on the biggest stages and not by entertaining crowds.
When you look at Roddick's career thus far, how would you compare him to other American greats such as Connor's, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras at similar ages? Do you think he has shown himself worthy of the mantle they carried or is he on a lesser tier?

I'd read your posts if they weren't giant blocks of unsegmented and unorganized text.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:02 AM
Simply the fact that my posts have caused such a vociferous backlash means I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. An earlier middle-aged poster said that he likes Roddick because of the passion he exhibits for the game and his cognizance of the fact that it needs to be sold to the masses of casual sports fans who are more accustomed to watching basketball, baseball, golf, etc. When you speak of passion do you mean outward displays of emotion? I doubt Roddick is truly more passionate for the game of tennis than any of the other player on tour though he may be better at vocalizing his passion. The best way that Andy can sell the game to American sportswatchers is by winning matches on the biggest stages and not by entertaining crowds.
When you look at Roddick's career thus far, how would you compare him to other American greats such as Connor's, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras at similar ages? Do you think he has shown himself worthy of the mantle they carried or is he on a lesser tier?
Agassi was a late bloomer.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:03 AM
Raw nerve, or just a way to alleviate the boredom.

I like Andy for his explosive game. It excites me.

Of course he's not in the same league as Connors (no apostrophe, oh brilliant one.), McEnroe, Agassi, or Sampras. He's also only 23.

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 04:04 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.

I was trying to come up with some intellectual insult that would at least in some way come close to the eloquence of some of the posts in here (none of which I am referring were posted by you,) but I failed, so instead.....


YOU SUCK

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:04 AM
Andy Roddick violů a Tourmalante.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 04:05 AM
OMG No one is comparing him to Connors or McEnroe or Agassi! Jesus, we all know he's not up there.

Simply the fact that my posts have caused such a vociferous backlash means I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. An earlier middle-aged poster said that he likes Roddick because of the passion he exhibits for the game and his cognizance of the fact that it needs to be sold to the masses of casual sports fans who are more accustomed to watching basketball, baseball, golf, etc. When you speak of passion do you mean outward displays of emotion? I doubt Roddick is truly more passionate for the game of tennis than any of the other player on tour though he may be better at vocalizing his passion. The best way that Andy can sell the game to American sportswatchers is by winning matches on the biggest stages and not by entertaining crowds.

You can't question someone's opinion of why they like Roddick. It's like that and period, you can't change it.


Oh my god. I am going to bed before I absolutely lose my nerve.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:06 AM
Tourmalante violů a everything aka todos.

fortyluv
11-03-2005, 04:08 AM
Uh, you're not jealous of my Sweetiepie are you?
Of course you are going to say no.
But I wonder.
Hmmmm.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:09 AM
Tourmalante violů a everything aka todos.
Does that mean what I think it means. d:

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:10 AM
Does that mean what I think it means. d:

It means GET YOUR DIRTY HANDS OFF MTF.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:10 AM
Tourmalante I see you're trying to save face by reading one of our threads about Andy's game.

Too little, too late, dude. :)

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2005, 04:12 AM
For all you know, I'm a regular at ar.com and can post
" oMg hE'Ss sSoOo HoTt!!!11123 "
with the best of 'em.

LOL!

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:12 AM
It means GET YOUR DIRTY HANDS OFF MTF.
hahahaha

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:13 AM
Raw nerve, or just a way to alleviate the boredom.

I like Andy for his explosive game. It excites me.

Of course he's not in the same league as Connors (no apostrophe, oh brilliant one.), McEnroe, Agassi, or Sampras. He's also only 23.

That's why I said to compare them at the same age

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 04:14 AM
Simply the fact that my posts have caused such a vociferous backlash means I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere. An earlier middle-aged poster said that he likes Roddick because of the passion he exhibits for the game and his cognizance of the fact that it needs to be sold to the masses of casual sports fans who are more accustomed to watching basketball, baseball, golf, etc. When you speak of passion do you mean outward displays of emotion? I doubt Roddick is truly more passionate for the game of tennis than any of the other player on tour though he may be better at vocalizing his passion. The best way that Andy can sell the game to American sportswatchers is by winning matches on the biggest stages and not by entertaining crowds.
When you look at Roddick's career thus far, how would you compare him to other American greats such as Connor's, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras at similar ages? Do you think he has shown himself worthy of the mantle they carried or is he on a lesser tier?

Do I think that Roddick is at the same level as Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, and Sampras? Obviously not since Roddick has not won as many slams as these former champions -- although I think Agassi had only won one slam when he turned twenty-three.

I do think Roddick is the best American of his generation. None of Roddick's contemporaries have come close to his success level. As I have posted several times in the AR forum, I believe that the lack of another top young American has placed extra pressure on Roddick to perform and he has at times wilted under that pressure.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:14 AM
Tourmalante I see you're trying to save face by reading one of our threads about Andy's game.

Too little, too late, dude. :)

Don't worry Debstah, I'll find what I'm looking for. And the fact that you are actually keeping tabs on me is creepy.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:17 AM
Don't worry Debstah, I'll find what I'm looking for. And the fact that you are actually keeping tabs on me is creepy.Keeping tabs, no, but it's my job to pay attention to what happens in that forum and I happened to see you reading a thread where we discussed his problems - a thread which refutes everything you've said about us as a group in this thread. So again, what's your point? If your point was to provide many of us with something enjoyable to do this evening, well in that case, you've succeeded! :bigclap:

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:18 AM
That's why I said to compare them at the same age
Andre Agassi had 20 titles including one slam at 23.
Andy Roddick has 20 titles including one slam at 23.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 04:18 AM
This is the most fun I've had on GM since... EVER.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:18 AM
Don't worry Debstah, I'll find what I'm looking for. And the fact that you are actually keeping tabs on me is creepy.

WTF. I wasn't even going to seriously post in this thread, because I was afriad that you'd be like, "omc indian people violů a Andy Roddick" or something, but hey. Leave Deb alone.

Chloe le Bopper
11-03-2005, 04:20 AM
Blah. I didn't read past the first page, but couldn't help but comment - those who simply gave a thumbs down and sniffed that the initial post was "too long"... y'all are making yourselves come off much worse than the topic starter. Not that I mind, it makes me giggle. I'm just sayin'.

I'll skim the rest later, but for now, Tourmalante, I hope that you've learned a valuable MTF lesson: unless you are on "the list" you are not allowed to comment about Andy in GM without being classified as a "hater" and snubbed. But maybe you already knew that. And for all I know, since I haven't read through the thread yet, you could have deserved it. I will be back to analyse this oh-so-important issue later ;)

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:20 AM
This is the most fun I've had on GM since... EVER.I think you missed my two faves - the Kooyong peanut butter thread, and the Dent/Andy/Nalbandian fat thread. those two are pure classic.

This one, however, is darn close ;)

Becca, read the rest, it's worth it ;)

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 04:20 AM
This is the most fun I've had on GM since... EVER.

I agree.

Other than being referred to as middle-aged for the first time ever in my life.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:21 AM
Andre Agassi had 20 titles including one slam at 23.
Andy Roddick has 20 titles including one slam at 23.


Nat violů a Tourmalante's argument.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:22 AM
superpinkone37 even went so far as to send me a message calling me an idiot. Now besides saying some of you had ADD I haven't descended to the same level of name calling your side has and I find this banter of: "You're on crack", etc. disheartening. I don't agree with you but I never condescended to insults until several pro-Andy posters struck first. The nature of my posts may have painted all of Roddick's fans to be irrational when I was speaking of a fraction of them and for that I apologize.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:22 AM
Nat violů a Tourmalante's argument.
hahahah omc, if I had water, I would have :spit: all over my keyboard.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:23 AM
The nature of my posts may have painted all of Roddick's fans to be irrational when I was speaking of a fraction of them and for that I apologize.Apology accepted. Byebye now :bigwave:

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:23 AM
superpinkone37 even went so far as to send me a message calling me an idiot. Now besides saying some of you had ADD I haven't descended to the same level of name calling your side has and I find this banter of: "You're on crack", etc. disheatening. I don't agree with you but I never condescended to insults until several pro-Andy posters struck first. The nature of my posts may have painted all of Roddick's fans to be irrational when I was speaking of a fraction of them and for that I apologize.

I don't think they really mean that you're personally on crack. I think they mean that your arguments are on crack, as in they're irrational, smoky and the effect disappears after a few seconds. sorry but k thanks bye.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:23 AM
Roddick is so bad that he's a world champion. Gosh, I wouldn't want to see him when he's good.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:23 AM
This may be one of the most arrogant and pretentious postings I have read on MTF. As Debstah and others have pointed out, you clearly have not visited the Roddick forum and read the discussions presented therein. If you had, you would have found that many Roddick fans are quite realistic about his talent, his ability and his performances over the past eighteen months. We have raised questions over the passivity of his shots, his court positioning, and his possible need for some sports psychology.

Is my support of Roddick based on his looks and his witty one-liners? Hardly! As someone old enough to be Andy's father, his looks are irrelevant to me. As someone who works daily with intelligent people grappling with difficult issues, I hear better and wittier one-liners over lunch.

I support Roddick because he (usually) shows passion and excitement for the game of tennis, and because he gets it that his role includes selling the sport of tennis to the American public. Having come of age when American men's tennis was dominated by the churlish Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe, it is refreshing to have the top American player understand his responsibility to the sport. In fact, I think Roddick short-changes himself because he spends to much time promoting the sport.

Maybe Roddick's rise to the top in 2003 was just an extended hot streak. However, that description does not remove the fact that Andy Roddick reached #1 in the world -- something very few professional tennis players acheive.


Didn't you say you were old enough to be his father? I didn't put the words in your mouth man.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:24 AM
Didn't you say you were old enough to be his father? I didn't put the words in your mouth man.


Do you sleep?

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:26 AM
However, that description does not remove the fact that Andy Roddick reached #1 in the world -- something very few professional tennis players acheive.

CARLOS MOYA DID THAT!!!!!!!

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:27 AM
CARLOS MOYA DID THAT!!!!!!!

For 2 weeks, he never finished number one! dawlin. ;)

YoursTruly
11-03-2005, 04:27 AM
Andy is good, but not THAT good. Let's just say he's not Sampras-Agassi material, but it's so known. But being in that level doesn't happen with everyone, so I think what Andy has achieved so far is okay and what he will continue to achieve. But the problem is that with all the built-up star popularity of Andy, it caused fans and non-tennis die-hards to see him as total Andre-Pete-Bjorn champion level or going to be one type. He's not. But that doesn't mean he's not good. It's just that the whole thing with him has been overdone (he's American) whereas there are a few players on tour (Roger not included because he already is) who really are the ones who should be looked at seriously as candidates who could make their way into history books.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:29 AM
For 2 weeks, he never finished number one! dawlin. ;)

stfu. he was the first spaniard to do it. cut carlos some slack. :)

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:30 AM
Andre Agassi had 20 titles including one slam at 23.
Andy Roddick has 20 titles including one slam at 23.

Agassi had two finals at Roland Garros an ATP Championship trophy, and several more years in the top ten among other things. And that was while being an obvious Marat Safinesque headcase who played an improvisational "go-for-broke" game. He definitely showed deeper wells of talent in his early years than Andy has thus far.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:30 AM
stfu. he was the first spaniard to do it. cut carlos some slack. :)

I will cut him some slack when he hits a backhand...sorry, I should have just said I will never cut him slack cuz we all know he doesn't hit a backhand.

renee_chin
11-03-2005, 04:31 AM
Roddick won the #1 spot for 2003 in terms of points, but I am talking about the qualitative opinions of the players on the tour and the aura around Roddick that year. I know that this is somewhat shaky ground to talk about because we are dealing with feelings and perceptions rather than numbers, but how many of us will agree with the statement that the Roddick of 2003 was comparable to the Mac of 81, the Lendl and becker of 87 and 89, the Sampras of 94, in other words truly dominant players of particular years.


But, that's how the rankings IS based on - the points you accumulate throughout the year. It doesn't matter if you have the aura or not throughout that particular year. Though, I do remember players saying Andy was 'unplayable' during that 'hot streak', but you'd be quick to point out again that any player is capable of going through a 'hot streak' for that couple of months... So, I guess this becomes irrelevant yet again... :rolleyes:


Come on, Ljubicic was on an even better hold streak just a week or so ago. I guess we can call him a dominant player now too.

The Ljubicic fans certainly think so.... :p

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:31 AM
I will cut him some slack when he hits a backhand...sorry, I should have just said I will never cut him slack cuz we all know he doesn't hit a backhand.

Carlos hits backhands! he just misses them.

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 04:31 AM
Didn't you say you were old enough to be his father? I didn't put the words in your mouth man.

I guess I should have put a sarcasm alert on my response to Noelle.

You can rest assured that I was not actually offended by your accurate description that I am middle-aged.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:32 AM
Agassi had two finals at Roland Garros an ATP Championship trophy, and several more years in the top ten among other things. And that was while being an obvious Marat Safinesque headcase who played an improvisational "go-for-broke" game. He definitely showed deeper wells of talent in his early years than Andy has thus far.

Tourmalante, just for curiousity's sake, what are your views on Carlos Moya? Do you believe that he was a talented clay-court forehand that got lucky? Or do you think he was a complete loser? I value ton expertise.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:32 AM
Andy is good, but not THAT good. Let's just say he's not Sampras-Agassi material, but it's so known. But being in that level doesn't happen with everyone, so I think what Andy has achieved so far is okay and what he will continue to achieve. But the problem is that with all the built-up star popularity of Andy, it caused fans and non-tennis die-hards to see him as total Andre-Pete-Bjorn champion level or going to be one type. He's not. But that doesn't mean he's not good. It's just that the whole thing with him has been overdone (he's American) whereas there are a few players on tour (Roger not included because he already is) who really are the ones who should be looked at seriously as candidates who could make their way into history books.

I like Tofu, it's not pizza but, nothing is pizza. Tofu is damn good though. Catch my drift. An apple can never be an orange but, they both can rule supreme in the fruit kingdom.

So, Andy can't compare to the legends cuz he isn't one yet. He's young and all this food talk is making me hungry.

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 04:32 AM
CARLOS MOYA DID THAT!!!!!!!

And Carlos should be proud of that acheivement. In my opinion, no one ever reaches the #1 spot undeservedly.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:33 AM
I like Tofu, it's not pizza but, nothing is pizza. Tofu is damn good though. Catch my drift. An apple can never be an orange but, they both can rule supreme in the fruit kingdom.

So, Andy can't compare to the legends cuz he isn't one yet. He's young and all this food talk is making me hungry.

This thread made me so hungry that I ate a chocolate popsicle. I suggest it.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:33 AM
Agassi had two finals at Roland Garros an ATP Championship trophy, and several more years in the top ten among other things. And that was while being an obvious Marat Safinesque headcase who played an improvisational "go-for-broke" game. He definitely showed deeper wells of talent in his early years than Andy has thus far.
Andy had two finals at Wimbledon. And Andre didn't reach a ranking of number one until 1995.
And, ok, he had a championship trophy, but Andy has 3 masters, Andre had 2, so it's pretty even, just admit that.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:34 AM
Carlos hits backhands! he just misses them.
:worship: Oh my Carlos, I have sinned! :worship:

Carlos rocks! He's a tennis rock star and everyone loves him.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:34 AM
This thread made me so hungry that I ate a chocolate popsicle. I suggest it.I got a frozen lemonade, I suggest that as well :)

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 04:34 AM
Agassi had two finals at Roland Garros an ATP Championship trophy, and several more years in the top ten among other things. And that was while being an obvious Marat Safinesque headcase who played an improvisational "go-for-broke" game. He definitely showed deeper wells of talent in his early years than Andy has thus far.

Hey who was that guy that los to Federer in the last two Wimbledon finals? Gosh I can't remember.....

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:35 AM
And Carlos should be proud of that acheivement. In my opinion, no one ever reaches the #1 spot undeservedly.

:) Take that, haters. Carlos IS a winner.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:35 AM
And Carlos should be proud of that acheivement. In my opinion, no one ever reaches the #1 spot undeservedly.

unless everyone in the world dies accept you. then you can tell all the dolls you made to keep yourself company you are the number one tennis player...well..I guess you did stay alive...so that's deserving...gosh you are righ!

Fee
11-03-2005, 04:35 AM
Fumus, liptea
Please take it off the board and go somewhere for the naughty spanking festival that you both really want...

kthanksbye

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 04:35 AM
This thread made me so hungry that I ate a chocolate popsicle. I suggest it.

With this food talk, I may have to search to see if there is any remaining Halloween candy in the house.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:36 AM
Hey who was that guy that los to Federer in the last two Wimbledon finals? Gosh I can't remember.....

Who was that guy who invented the post it note? It doesn't matter, the fact is we have them now.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:37 AM
What is more important than ending the year at #1 is the amount of weeks you were there. And right now Andy only has eleven(the same as Venus Williams), which means he was lucky his stay at #1 coincided with the end of the year, because if his eleven weeks had been in say...April, Andy fans would have an even more tenuous thread of evidence to affirm their player's dominance.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 04:37 AM
Fumus, liptea
Please take it off the board and go somewhere for the naughty spanking festival that you both really want...

kthanksbye
:haha:

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:37 AM
Fumus, liptea
Please take it off the board and go somewhere for the naughty spanking festival that you both really want...

kthanksbye

Not is free in life...there's always a FEE!!! :D

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:38 AM
Hey who was that guy that los to Federer in the last two Wimbledon finals? Gosh I can't remember.....

ooh! I knoW! It was Carlos Moya!

Noelle
11-03-2005, 04:38 AM
Gee, I can't remember what the point of this thread was.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:39 AM
What is more important than ending the year at #1 is the amount of weeks you were there. And right now Andy only has eleven(the same as Venus Williams), which means he was lucky his stay at #1 coincided with the end of the year, because if his eleven weeks had been in say...April, Andy fans would have an even more tenuous thread of evidence to affirm their player's dominance.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around...does it make a noise?

well if doesn't happen and you aren't there...you can't say. Federer hadn't come into his game at point so maybe he would have more. :)

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:39 AM
What is more important than ending the year at #1 is the amount of weeks you were there. And right now Andy only has eleven(the same as Venus Williams), which means he was lucky his stay at #1 coincided with the end of the year, because if his eleven weeks had been in say...April, Andy fans would have an even more tenuous thread of evidence to affirm their player's dominance.I disagree with that whole-heartedly. Ending the year #1 is important. Pete wasn't always #1 in those 6 years, but he always ended #1, and that is what people remember. Plus, Venus isn't so bad. She's hardly my fave player or even close, but there are worse women you could have compared him to.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 04:40 AM
What is more important than ending the year at #1 is the amount of weeks you were there. And right now Andy only has eleven(the same as Venus Williams), which means he was lucky his stay at #1 coincided with the end of the year, because if his eleven weeks had been in say...April, Andy fans would have an even more tenuous thread of evidence to affirm their player's dominance.
Andy still has plenty of time to get his weeks.
And weeks at number one are not important, Rafael Nadal is an outstanding player, and he hasn't had a day at number one.

liptea
11-03-2005, 04:40 AM
Gee, I can't remember what the point of this thread was.

THe point is:

Carlos Moya violů a Rafael Nadal.

Chloe le Bopper
11-03-2005, 04:41 AM
So I finally read the first post, and aside from knocking Roddick's 2003 year end number 1 status and a few captain obvious remarks, I honestly don't see why people made such an immediate fuss over it. I can't really be bothered to read the rest of the thread if it involves people being that sensitive :shrug: Well... can't be bothered right now. I may or may not be in the mood later.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:41 AM
Gee, I can't remember what the point of this thread was.The point is, when you arbitrarily insult a whole group of intelligent people with ridiculous generalizations and unfounded accusations, you'll get what you deserve.

Fee
11-03-2005, 04:42 AM
It's actually been pretty fun, and Sjengster put some excellent posts in here. Then it got really funny.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:44 AM
Liptea, I think Carlos was a talented player who lost his way sometime before his injury in the late ninties. His career troubles do have something to do with the uneveness of his game, but I think he was psyched out by the rest of the top ten players. I thought he should have gotten to more non clay slam finals then simply the 97 AO. But maybe getting slammed by Sampras there already held the seeds for his lackluster career. Even though he had a resurgence in 2002 until a year ago, he was never dangerous(he never lived up to his seeding in slams). To me he was the prototype of the all court spaniard that Nadal apires(and probably will have more success) to be.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:46 AM
Liptea, I think Carlos was a talented player who lost his way sometime before his injury in the late ninties. His career troubles do have something to do with the uneveness of his game, but I think he was psyched out by the rest of the top ten players. I thought he should have gotten to more non clay slam finals then simply the 97 AO. But maybe getting slammed by Sampras there already held the seeds for his lackluster career. Even though he had a resurgence in 2002 until a year ago, he was never dangerous(he never lived up to his seeding in slams). To me he was the prototype of the all court spaniard that Nadal apires(and probably will have more success) to be.

I think you like stating obivous things with crazy things, then it makes it seem like you know what you are talking about.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:47 AM
The point is, when you arbitrarily insult a whole group of intelligent people with ridiculous generalizations and unfounded accusations, you'll get what you deserve.

Did my posts not accurately describe a portion of Andy Roddick fans? And aren't you making an unfounded assumption by saying the said group of people are intelligent? If I had to write every post piecemeal in order to not offend some people I would never get anywhere. Anyway I'm tired of seeing these high-fiving, churlish, "you-get-yours" posts. I hope it makes you feel special.

Chloe le Bopper
11-03-2005, 04:48 AM
It's actually been pretty fun, and Sjengster put some excellent posts in here. Then it got really funny.
I'll keep that in mind should I be in the mood later :p

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:50 AM
I think you like stating obivous things with crazy things, then it makes it seem like you know what you are talking about.

She asked me what I thought. I can't help it if it sounds obvious to you. Could you elaborate on this juxtopostion of obviousness and craziness you see in my posts?

Fumus
11-03-2005, 04:51 AM
She asked me what I thought. I can't help it if it sounds obvious to you. Could you elaborate on this juxtopostion of obviousness and craziness you see in my posts?

Using big words helps your case too. Did you breakout the thesarus for me?

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:54 AM
Using big words helps your case too. Did you breakout the thesarus for me?

No, it was already out earlier. I'm sorry I put you to all the trouble of actually looking them up.

star
11-03-2005, 04:56 AM
Did my posts not accurately describe a portion of Andy Roddick fans? And aren't you making an unfounded assumption by saying the said group of people are intelligent? If I had to write every post piecemeal in order to not offend some people I would never get anywhere. Anyway I'm tired of seeing these high-fiving, churlish, "you-get-yours" posts. I hope it makes you feel special.

:lol: You don't actually need to see them if they tire you.

But, you know, if you want to lump a whole group of people together and insult them, you are going to get hostility.

And, I suppose somewhere in the universe there are some of Roddick's fans who think the way you assumed they think, but you are posting here on this board, so it's reasonable to assume you were speaking about the Roddick fans on this board and not somewhere floating around in the realm of possiblity. I'm not aware of any of Andy's fans who think the way you presumed they think.

You clearly already had a low opinon of Andy's fans when you began writing that post. You could have said most of what you said without having stooped to insult. But since you stooped ---- you now get to be tired. :hatoff:

YoursTruly
11-03-2005, 05:04 AM
I like Tofu, it's not pizza but, nothing is pizza. Tofu is damn good though. Catch my drift. An apple can never be an orange but, they both can rule supreme in the fruit kingdom.

So, Andy can't compare to the legends cuz he isn't one yet. He's young and all this food talk is making me hungry.


That's food. This is about people and their ability. It's true that you can't compare Andy to the legends because he's young, but sometimes it's not because "he isn't one yet." Not everyone becomes legends. You can see things from a player and what they have about their abilities, and sometimes you can see something in them that will be legendary. Sometimes not. That's why you have fans/commentators/analysts when seeing the stuff from a player, they'd say things like, "He's consistent from the baseline and has good power on both wings, but his greatest quality is his heart and his work ethic, so he should be able to be in the top 20 consistently." You can easily tell with Roddick, who is 23 now. He's good but it's not magic on the court. But you never know, something in him could happen starting now. Though it seems small.

One thing more is the environment is really different now with all tennis being so international and diverse and rich in talent. Also consider that for people, Andy has the marketing ability and personality (and he's American), so they used this because they claim tennis is in need of figures to identify tennis with. So this would naturally come with talks of him possibly being up there with Andre-Pete-Bjorn-Ivan etc. Meanwhile, say two players right now in the top 25 (and rising quickly) really have the serious talent and work ethic and are really legend material, but are from other countries and are not given attention. That's how it is.

NYCtennisfan
11-03-2005, 05:05 AM
It's spelled juxtaposition

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:09 AM
It's spelled juxtaposition

Okay NYCtennisfan you win a point. We could all be correcting each other's spelling mistakes if we wanted to. Isn't that sort of petty?

star
11-03-2005, 05:10 AM
That's food. This is about people and their ability. It's true that you can't compare Andy to the legends because he's young, but sometimes it's not because "he isn't one yet." Not everyone becomes legends. You can see things from a player and what they have about their abilities, and sometimes you can see something in them that will be legendary. Sometimes not. That's why you have fans/commentators/analysts when seeing the stuff from a player, they'd say things like, "He's consistent from the baseline and has good power on both wings, but his greatest quality is his heart and his work ethic, so he should be able to be in the top 20 consistently." You can easily tell with Roddick, who is 23 now. He's good but it's not magic on the court. But you never know, something in him could happen starting now. Though it seems small.

One thing more is the environment is really different now with all tennis being so international and diverse and rich in talent. Also consider that for people, Andy has the marketing ability and personality (and he's American), so they used this because they claim tennis is in need of figures to identify tennis with. So this would naturally come with talks of him possibly being up there with Andre-Pete-Bjorn-Ivan etc. Meanwhile, say two players right now in the top 25 (and rising quickly) really have the serious talent and work ethic and are really legend material, but are from other countries and are not given attention. That's how it is.

Well, I don't think Andy is going to be a legend, but few are. If I only liked tennis players who were locks to be legends, I wouldn't like many tennis players, and I like many tennis players. :) I have fond memories of many players who are perhaps forgotten by most today, but they gave me thrills when they played.

Lee
11-03-2005, 05:11 AM
All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.

I patiently read through all the 58 posts before this. And I tried being open mind and beliefing you want a serious and honest discussion here.

You total blowed your credibility with post like this.

PaulieM
11-03-2005, 05:13 AM
if it wasn't for all the badreps you probably got for your posts, this thread would be a vcash goldmine.

YoursTruly
11-03-2005, 05:14 AM
Well, I don't think Andy is going to be a legend, but few are. If I only liked tennis players who were locks to be legends, I wouldn't like many tennis players, and I like many tennis players. :) I have fond memories of many players who are perhaps forgotten by most today, but they gave me thrills when they played.


Exactly. But people go on and on about Andy, so replies happen. By the way, speaking of thrills, I miss Arazi, Dosedel and Korda. Unforgettable stuff on court! Good to see Santoro still in it.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:18 AM
Exactly. But people go on and on about Andy, so replies happen. By the way, speaking of thrills, I miss Arazi, Dosedel and Korda. Unforgettable stuff on court! Good to see Santoro still in it.

Everyone of the players you just mentioned is more talented than Andy.

star
11-03-2005, 05:18 AM
What people are going on and on about Andy being one of the best players ever? I haven't seen that.

Action Jackson
11-03-2005, 05:18 AM
Thanks for the entertainment, better than reading about the functions and the implication of the Common Agricultural Policy, though some would say that certain players have benefitted from excessive subsidies when it comes to their rankings.

star
11-03-2005, 05:20 AM
Everyone of the players you just mentioned is more talented than Andy.

You have a interesting definition of talent.

I think it stick in your craw that Andy has had more success than those you consider to be more talented than Andy.

But this isn't figure skating.

spooky105
11-03-2005, 05:22 AM
RODDICK FOR #1 IN 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rocker2::rocker2:

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:25 AM
You have a interesting definition of talent.

I think it stick in your craw that Andy has had more success than those you consider to be more talented than Andy.

But this isn't figure skating.

I am not mad because talent outs in enough players, McEnroe for instance. He didn't even practice for matches and he has more slams than Roddick can ever hope for.

idolwatcher1
11-03-2005, 05:27 AM
wheeeeeee!!

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/8583/roddick4lm.jpg

Dirk
11-03-2005, 05:54 AM
As someone who doesn't consider themself partial to either Andy or Federer, I must say that I don't think the hardcore fans of Roddick ever denied that Federer is the better player. You say that tennis is a game of geometry, of strategy, basically a game of more than just a big serve -- this is true, but tennis is one of the most mental sports out there, and it's quite obvious (to any tennis enthusiast) that one large chunk of Andy's mental side is missing; the confidence is gone.

It's not as if he doesn't possess the weapons and sheer power to outplay everyone BUT Federer. He does. He's shown it before. Is he consistent with it? No, and that's why you see him losing to so many players ranked lower than him. So let me say before I continue that I agree he doesn't have that complete package that he needs to tango with Federer.

Here's the way I see it, though. Without confidence, you don't win. I suppose the thought of not being able to beat Federer or other top-ranked players on a consistent basis (or at all) has played on Andy's mind quite a bit, and his confidence has gone down significantly. Being a Williams sisters fan, I compare it to Venus Williams' situation. For the past two years she has had zero confidence thanks to her own younger sister, Serena (who was at one point the Federer of women's tennis) and her injury problems. When her mental state was down, her winning was down. She still had the shots, but couldn't make them.

Roddick went for his forehand more in 2003. Anyone who compares matches can see that. His serve has increased in speed, it's somewhat increased in placement and spin, and I do think he's trying to polish the other sides of his game a little more. I think the only problem with his game is what Brad brought out of him: the aggression. He used to be a first-strike player. That's not there anymore. THAT is why he's losing. He's too neutral.

His serve is still one of the most effective ones on the tour. He has the shots, the power, the determination to win on any occasion, he just doesn't apply it to his best.

So for you to assess his losing etc. as him merely not being good enough to compete at the top level is foolish. It IS true that his mentality state isn't as positive as it used to be. It IS true that he has the capability to be 1 or 2 in the world again. It IS true that Federer is the better all-around player. He's (Andy) not someone that I see dropping out of the top five in the next couple of years, and I think he'll win another slam or two before he's finished. So what are you telling us that either isn't 100% biased and assumed or that we don't already know?

Edit: I suppose my avatar looks like a big confliction with all of this, but it's merely satirical. ;)

I agree with the last part. I do have a hard time seeing Andy as a one-slam wonder and other parts of his game have gotten better and other skills such as defense got better too. The confidence part is the one I disagree with. Andy didn't just lose his confidence on his own whim. It was more than just the Federer losses and the Hewitt ones. Andy lost matches that he shouldn't have or didn't believe he would. He never imagined back during the break at the end of 2003 that 2004 and 2005 would end up the way it did.

He has a great chance to sew up number 3 in the world this week and at the Cup, but it will take time plus big results for his confidence and skills to be on a high plane again.

spooky105
11-03-2005, 09:20 AM
I agree with the last part. I do have a hard time seeing Andy as a one-slam wonder and other parts of his game have gotten better and other skills such as defense got better too. The confidence part is the one I disagree with. Andy didn't just lose his confidence on his own whim. It was more than just the Federer losses and the Hewitt ones. Andy lost matches that he shouldn't have or didn't believe he would. He never imagined back during the break at the end of 2003 that 2004 and 2005 would end up the way it did.

He has a great chance to sew up number 3 in the world this week and at the Cup, but it will take time plus big results for his confidence and skills to be on a high plane again.

you are stupid man.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 02:16 PM
That's food. This is about people and their ability. It's true that you can't compare Andy to the legends because he's young, but sometimes it's not because "he isn't one yet." Not everyone becomes legends. You can see things from a player and what they have about their abilities, and sometimes you can see something in them that will be legendary. Sometimes not. That's why you have fans/commentators/analysts when seeing the stuff from a player, they'd say things like, "He's consistent from the baseline and has good power on both wings, but his greatest quality is his heart and his work ethic, so he should be able to be in the top 20 consistently." You can easily tell with Roddick, who is 23 now. He's good but it's not magic on the court. But you never know, something in him could happen starting now. Though it seems small.

One thing more is the environment is really different now with all tennis being so international and diverse and rich in talent. Also consider that for people, Andy has the marketing ability and personality (and he's American), so they used this because they claim tennis is in need of figures to identify tennis with. So this would naturally come with talks of him possibly being up there with Andre-Pete-Bjorn-Ivan etc. Meanwhile, say two players right now in the top 25 (and rising quickly) really have the serious talent and work ethic and are really legend material, but are from other countries and are not given attention. That's how it is.

Andy's legend is already growing. ;)

Fumus
11-03-2005, 02:16 PM
you are stupid man.

Actually he the nail on the head. To be honest.

Angle Queen
11-03-2005, 02:28 PM
Damn...I see I missed all the fun last night.

Well, don't suppose there's much I can really add...but it's MTF...so I'm gonna...anyway.

All I have to do is look at your signatures and nationalities to know that you would never have honestly read my posts with an open mind anyway.Lee's right. This one blew away your credibility here.

I'm an American middle-aged, female Andy Roddick fan. (Gosh, that feels so much like an AA introduction.) He's not my favorite, doesn't even have my favorite game. So why follow him? I won't deny one of the main reasons I do is because he's American (none of my others are) but more importantly...he's an excellent player and a top steward of the game -- home and abroad, on- and off-court. He represents himself, his sport and his country in a manner far more mature than his years.

Likewise, I can say the same for his fans here on MTF. I generally don't hang out in the players forums, even of my favorites...except for Andy's...and that's directly related to the kind of people there. Young and old, male and female, gay and straight, Americans and non-Americans. They're fun, funny and articulate. They're also passionate fans of the game and loyal...to each other and their favorite player. He is cheered...and he is roasted, sometimes with a vengeance I can't quite comprehend. His matches are watched, dissected...sometimes point-by-point. It's a level of thoroughness that has both surprised me...and pulled me into their midst. I'm just sorry you chose to lump them all together with your overall impressions (perhaps from other sources).

And, for what it's worth, I do think it appropriate to mention Roddick's name with Connors, McEnroe and Sampras. While the end trophy count might ultimately be different, I believe Andy to be the top American of his generation. I personally detested Connors, thought he was bad for the game. I have a love-hate relationship with McEnroe...and Pete completely turned me off to the game for an entire decade. I'm glad I've got a player to look up to, now, who is both successful and likeable.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 02:40 PM
Damn...I see I missed all the fun last night.

Well, don't suppose there's much I can really add...but it's MTF...so I'm gonna...anyway.

Lee's right. This one blew away your credibility here.

I'm an American middle-aged, female Andy Roddick fan. (Gosh, that feels so much like an AA introduction.) He's not my favorite, doesn't even have my favorite game. So why follow him? I won't deny one of the main reasons I do is because he's American (none of my others are) but more importantly...he's an excellent player and a top steward of the game -- home and abroad, on- and off-court. He represents himself, his sport and his country in a manner far more mature than his years.

Likewise, I can say the same for his fans here on MTF. I generally don't hang out in the players forums, even of my favorites...except for Andy's...and that's directly related to the kind of people there. Young and old, male and female, gay and straight, Americans and non-Americans. They're fun, funny and articulate. They're also passionate fans of the game and loyal...to each other and their favorite player. He is cheered...and he is roasted, sometimes with a vengeance I can't quite comprehend. His matches are watched, dissected...sometimes point-by-point. It's a level of thoroughness that has both surprised me...and pulled me into their midst. I'm just sorry you chose to lump them all together with your overall impressions (perhaps from other sources).

And, for what it's worth, I do think it appropriate to mention Roddick's name with Connors, McEnroe and Sampras. While the end trophy count might ultimately be different, I believe Andy to be the top American of his generation. I personally detested Connors, thought he was bad for the game. I have a love-hate relationship with McEnroe...and Pete completely turned me off to the game for an entire decade. I'm glad I've got a player to look up to, now, who is both successful and likeable.

I could see how Roddick could be admired for his qualities as a person, but I thought this discussion only pertained to his worth as a tennis player. Nobody liked Connor's arrogance, combativeness, and gamesmanship but we can't deny his greatness as a player. We can't let our perceptions of Andy as an individual, and citizen of the world color our view of him as a tennis player. He may be the paragon of virtue but in tennis terms he is not on the same rung of the ladder as those other American greats. He is the greatest of his generation, but that isn't really saying much when his american contemporaries are journeymen (Dent, Fish, Blake, Ginepri, are not even a blip in the annals of tennis history-Blake is an upstanding guy with some talent along with Ginepri but this is the hard truth).

Angle Queen
11-03-2005, 02:50 PM
I could see how Roddick could be admired for his qualities as a person, but I thought this discussion only pertained to his worth as a tennis player. Sorry, Tourmalante...you made this as much about Andy's fans as you did his accomplishments with your opening paragraph.

...

Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.

...

(selective quoting on my part)

I merely tried to defend myself...as a fan...and the others I know here on MTF. You were also the one to ask us to compare Roddick with others. Personally, I think it impossible to make comparisons with prior generations. The game has morphed and changed so much. Statistics are just that. Except some can refer to them as Lie, Damn Lies...and Statistics. Players need to be compared to there compatriots. And in that regard, I believe Andy should still be mentioned in the same breath as Federer, Hewitt.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 03:09 PM
Sorry, Tourmalante...you made this as much about Andy's fans as you did his accomplishments with your opening paragraph.

(selective quoting on my part)

I merely tried to defend myself...as a fan...and the others I know here on MTF. You were also the one to ask us to compare Roddick with others. Personally, I think it impossible to make comparisons with prior generations. The game has morphed and changed so much. Statistics are just that. Except some can refer to them as Lie, Damn Lies...and Statistics. Players need to be compared to there compatriots. And in that regard, I believe Andy should still be mentioned in the same breath as Federer, Hewitt.

I did make the discussion about his fans but not about his character as a person. Tennis is a world sport it isn't American or Spanish or Swiss, and therefore those "compatriots" we compare Andy to should include players from all countries which would naturally include the rest of the players in the top 5. Andy is not as good a player as them. If we were roughly estimating Andy at this moment is similar to Korda, etc. in results. What did you mean about statistics? I agree that they don't tell the whole picture, but seeing Andy's game exposed by his top 5 brethren on television does.

Noelle
11-03-2005, 03:14 PM
At this point I think we should again see Tourmalante's first post, point-by-point.

What I do want to address however, is this erroneous opinion that far in Roddick's past, there was this magical heyday where he was the undisputed #1 in the world, and his forehand and serve clobbered all comers on the ATP tour. Roddick fans, in way of psychologically distancing themselves from their player's dismal recent results, have taken to concocting this dreamland fiction of Roddick's 2003 Year. They tell us that no, it is not the fact that Federer is simply the better and more complete player, but that Roddick is in a mental crisis and that harnessing his mental energies properly( as he did all those years ago) he would topple the swissman from his throne and the tennis world would rejoice. I'm sorry to inform those interested parties that Roger was beating Roddick like a drum well before he lost the fearlessness you speak of.
And of course Tourmalante has already admitted being wrong (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=2617263&postcount=113) about this staggering misconception of Roddick's fans (at least, those on this forum).

I am here to tell you that at no point in Roddick's career was he ever truly a dominant player. In fact his year-end status for that year is one of the most dubious year-end finishes in the open era. One of those years where one sits back and wonders whether the rankings computers have a mind of their own and were bribed.
Uh, yeah. Conspiracy theory, anyone? Where's the facts to back this statement up? I'm not sure I read them in this thread.

The fact that Roddick can remain in the top ten with the scarcity of legitimate titles he has won this year is a testament to how well Roger and Rafael have cleaned up in the points race. Even a few mickey-mouse tournaments, and one strong showing at Wimbledon are enough to keep him in the top five.
I think it's also a testament to how poorly the players below him have performed (injured or not). And for that, he deserves the #3 ranking this year.

Roddick's whole career can be seen in terms of the evolution of the tour's reaction to his serve. At the beginning of his career the sheer pace of it astounded everyone, and I distinctly remember Sampras getting clobbered by one in 2002 or so. Finicky things like placement, and variety played no part at that point because the other players couldn't even see the ball. But starting in 2003 with the Wimbledon Semifinal, Federer gave the rest of the tour the blueprints to neutralizing the serve. Of course this didn't matter much for awhile because not many people have the requisite handspeed and eyes. But slowly even journeyman began to be able to block back his returns and from then on the point was 50/50 at worst. Now, with no real substance behind his powerful serve, we see Roddick having trouble with satellite players and getting knocked out of tournaments in the early rounds seemingly every week.
Fernando Verdasco, Nicolas Massu, Jose Acasuso, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Gilles Muller, and Ivo Karlovic, are hardly satellite players; you're exaggerating, and oversimplifying the reasons why he lost early.

Andy Roddick's problem is one of the strongest endorsements for teaching developing players the art and thinking of the game at an early age. Tennis has, its geometry, it's strategy, those telltale nuances that spell the difference between the merely good and the great. The young Andy was bereft of such instruction(or didn't have the initiative to garner a modicum of it by watching tapes of the greats, or just experimenting on the court) and only now in the big leagues, is this lack coming to light.
This point seems sensible enough. It is the only point that made sense, though.

On a certain level you cannot make an old dog learn new tricks. Andy is never going to be a competent serve-volleyer or as tactically aware as Coria or Nalbandian. And even if he wanted to be such, Goldfine is not the man to get him there. What the hell does Goldfine know about volleying anyway?
A lot more than most of us know. He wasn't an assistant coach for the US Davis Cup team for nothing (and he coached Todd Martin, too).

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 03:14 PM
..... Connor's.....It's Connors. We can't let our perceptions of Andy as an individual, and citizen of the world color our view of him as a tennis player. He may be the paragon of virtue but in tennis terms he is not on the same rung of the ladder as those other American greats.I could not disagree with you more. The fact that he is a good person who spends so much of his time doing things for others is one of the reasons I am a fan. While it drives me crazy that he hops on planes to go all over the place to do chairty events, I admire his dedication to it. And people are remembered by the kinds of people they are almost as much as what they accomplish in their professions. One need not look any further than tennis's own Arthur Ashe for an elucidation of my point. The man was a fantastic tennis player, but he's remembered for the things he did as a fantastic person. And if Andy is remembered as a good player who also is a good person and does good things for people and for tennis, I really have no problem with that.

He is the greatest of his generation, but that isn't really saying much when his american contemporaries are journeymen (Dent, Fish, Blake, Ginepri, are not even a blip in the annals of tennis history-Blake is an upstanding guy with some talent along with Ginepri but this is the hard truth).That's not Andy's fault. It's also not Andy's fault (or Hewitt's, or whoever else's) that he's playing at the same time as Fed - they would all have had more titles - including slams, if it were not for him. So this isn't Andy's problem, he has no control over the historical period in which he played.

Golfnduck
11-03-2005, 03:18 PM
I could see how Roddick could be admired for his qualities as a person, but I thought this discussion only pertained to his worth as a tennis player. Nobody liked Connor's arrogance, combativeness, and gamesmanship but we can't deny his greatness as a player. We can't let our perceptions of Andy as an individual, and citizen of the world color our view of him as a tennis player. He may be the paragon of virtue but in tennis terms he is not on the same rung of the ladder as those other American greats. He is the greatest of his generation, but that isn't really saying much when his american contemporaries are journeymen (Dent, Fish, Blake, Ginepri, are not even a blip in the annals of tennis history-Blake is an upstanding guy with some talent along with Ginepri but this is the hard truth).
I believe that you can't really compare different generations, as Angel Queen said before. The game has evolved alot since Sampras, Martin, Chang, and "young" Agassi. Even Agassi has had to adapt his game to stay competitive. I am still not quite sure why everyone hates Andy so much, but I know having a young American tennis player to look up to is great. I am actually picking up tennis right now because I love to watch Andy play. Yes, Federer's game is more "pretty", but there's something about Andy's game that strikes a cord with me. It's his emotions, fired up, screaming, fist pumping Andy. With Roger, you don't get alot of emotion during the match. That is probably why I don't follow him. I believe Andy will go down as one of the tennis greats.

Winston's Human
11-03-2005, 03:28 PM
I did make the discussion about his fans but not about his character as a person. Tennis is a world sport it isn't American or Spanish or Swiss, and therefore those "compatriots" we compare Andy to should include players from all countries which would naturally include the rest of the players in the top 5. Andy is not as good a player as them. If we were roughly estimating Andy at this moment is simmilar to Korda, etc. in results. What did you mean about statistics? I agree that they don't tell the whole picture, but seeing Andy's game exposed by his top 5 brethren on television does.

I do not think there is a single Roddick fan on MTF who is not cognizant of Roddick's struggles with the other members of the top five -- particularly his dismal H2H with Federer, Hewitt and Agassi.

However, your posts implies that Roddick has no business being in the top 5 -- an implication which is not supported by the statistics. While Roddick has not played well against the other top fivers, there is not a single player in the remainder of the top 20 who has a winning record against Roddick.

Roddick has winning records over Coria, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Safin, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, T. Johansson, Ginepri, Ferrero, Hrbaty and Robredo.

Roddick has never played Gaudio, Puerta, Gasquet or Ferrer.

Carito_90
11-03-2005, 04:03 PM
Carlos Moya violů a Rafael Nadal.

I wouldn't consider it a ****... since I'm sure Rafa was very willing to do it ;)


You guys make me feel so proud of the fact I'm an Andy fan *sniffles*

I think the guy's left for good.

DJ dropshot
11-03-2005, 04:12 PM
You hate my posts because they are provocative and too long for attention deficient posters such as your selves (barring Sjengster). And even Sjengster didn't really offer anything refuting any of my comments, yet you hail him like a hero boxer who just won the bout. Why don't you guys admit that a good percentage of your like of Roddick has nothing to do with his game, but with his supposed all-American looks and witty one-liners in press conferences(especially droll when he's talking about a beating he was recently dealt). In my posts I at least attempt to write somthing substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else who floods the forums with galleries of their favorite naked players, polls about who has the biggest ego, how Roger and Rafael have cute nicknames for themselves, and so forth. I think these forums need more people like me and fewer people from the majority.
And Sjengster, I am not trying to win a popularity contest or even get a lot a people to agree with me when I post something. If I joined this hunky dory community of lovey dovey posters who never write anything challenging others to respond, so I could write only good things about tennis players something is obviously wrong.

I read your original post with an open mind and tried to determine where it was coming from. Unfortunately, this post is the one that discredited you in my eyes. You went from insulting Roddick fans to insulting "everyone else" - all board posters.
As far as admitting why I like Andy Roddick? Let me put it this way. While I think Jeremy Irons is an incredible actor, other talented actors that are funny and good looking usually get my 7$ at the theater. That's just the way it is. Few of my favorite actors have an academy award. I like them for simply how they entertain me. If I liked them for their acting ability alone, I'd never see anything outside of a Jane Austen movie. How boring would that be? Sports is entertainment after all. Andy is a nice cocktail of looks, charm, talent, personality and a dash of drama. He may not rank #1 in any of these categories on people's list but I think he's a pretty complete package. Hey! Andy really IS a winner on all surfaces.
Lastly, the Roddick forum and discussions that happen there. I have never read a negative post about another player in that forum. Nor have I seen a regular Roddick forum member write a negative post about another player in GM. That's what I respect most about that forum. While they can speculate on the reasons for his 2005 results, you can certainly disagree. That's what forums are for. I just wish you wouldn't have gone down the "I at least attempt to write something substantial about tennis, unlike everyone else" path. Thoughtful posts with insight are great, but sometimes a shirtless picture, a dumb joke, or a silly poll is just what you need when your favorite is not playing!! Just wait 'til the off season!

Merton
11-03-2005, 04:16 PM
It seems i missed all the fun in this thread. This thread appeared as an attack more to Andy's fans than Andy himself. The original poster apologized so there is not much to add. I just want to say that i have posted in Andy's forum because i like the people, the arguments and the diversity there. I like Andy but he is not my top favourite.

Andy's play this year has evolved, he has played some excellent tennis on occasion, (Moya at IW, Stepanek at Queens, Seb and ToJo at Wimby, JCF and Lleyton at Cincy) coupled with losses that he should have avoided. (They have been mentioned above) The consistent pattern in these losses points to a confidence/pshycology problem. He seems more risk-averse these days related to his 2003 run. Still, there is no fluke about his ranking, there cannot be a serious argument about Andy not deserving the #3 spot this year.

guida
11-03-2005, 04:35 PM
As long as there are players/actors/singers who have good looks, a strong personality and legions of fans, apart from their intrinsic talents, there will always be people like Tourmalante; people who feel frustrated and alienated by these guys' good fortune. Since they can't change a damn thing, they resort to random attacks and general trolling. I didn't even bother to respond to his posts because they make me pity him more than try to see his point.

But I do agree that this thread is an instant classic. :D

skel1983
11-03-2005, 04:42 PM
As long as there are players/actors/singers who have good looks, a strong personality and legions of fans, apart from their intrinsic talents, there will always be people like Tourmalante; people who feel frustrated and alienated by these guys' good fortune. Since they can't change a damn thing, they resort to random attacks and general trolling. I didn't even bother to respond to his posts because they make me pity him more than try to see his point.

But I do agree that this thread is an instant classic. :D


Andy Roddick is going through a change in tactics, style everything!!

Similar to one Tiger Woods, Roddick is a guy who want's to be the best, and his current form, is a little iffy and he throws in a few howlers, but this is because he want's to be at top of the game, he realises that would not be possible with his game in 03 where it was all about hitting the serve big and the forehand even bigger, he is trying different things to try and become the best again, you can't blame him, i honestly believe if he went back to his old smash and grab he would of had better results this year, but he has to try something to get closer to Roger, and good on him because alot of players would be happy ranked 2/3 in the world and winning a few events a year but not Andy.

I think an improvement will be made next year and he has chances to tackle Nadal for number 2, but at the end of the day he has not got the talent to beat Roger Federer.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:44 PM
As long as there are players/actors/singers who have good looks, a strong personality and legions of fans, apart from their intrinsic talents, there will always be people like Tourmalante; people who feel frustrated and alienated by these guys' good fortune. Since they can't change a damn thing, they resort to random attacks and general trolling. I didn't even bother to respond to his posts because they make me pity him more than try to see his point.

But I do agree that this thread is an instant classic. :D

Whatever. First of all you are making as gross an assumption about my nature as anything I made about Andy Roddick fans in the course of the thread. I guess that lowers you to my supposedly despicable level. Secondly even if what you are saying is true, it has no bearing on Andy's current status as a tennis player. And there was nothing random about my post. Andy Roddick's woes have been a central focus of these forums for several months now.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:49 PM
Andy Roddick is going through a change in tactics, style everything!!

Similar to one Tiger Woods, Roddick is a guy who want's to be the best, and his current form, is a little iffy and he throws in a few howlers, but this is because he want's to be at top of the game, he realises that would not be possible with his game in 03 where it was all about hitting the serve big and the forehand even bigger, he is trying different things to try and become the best again, you can't blame him, i honestly believe if he went back to his old smash and grab he would of had better results this year, but he has to try something to get closer to Roger, and good on him because alot of players would be happy ranked 2/3 in the world and winning a few events a year but not Andy.

I think an improvement will be made next year and he has chances to tackle Nadal for number 2, but at the end of the day he has not got the talent to beat Roger Federer.

The difference is that Tiger had the game to begin with. He was once the undisputed #1 golf player in the world and then had a hiatus while he tweaked his swing. Roddick never even came close to the domination Tiger imposed on his peers several years ago. And the problem with Andy is that he has no "home turf"-in other words a surface where he is supreme, like Nadal is on clay. As long as he doesn't have a sure source of points like Nadal does with the various clay tournaments and Roland Garros he can't get #2 back.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 04:53 PM
Andy Roddick's woes have been a central focus of these forums for several months now.So then you should see that your posts in this thread are merely restating the obvious, are redunant, and that you've added nothing new to the discussions.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 04:57 PM
So then you should see that your posts in this thread are merely restating the obvious, are redunant, and that you've added nothing new to the discussions.

No worse than everyonelse on these forums

DJ dropshot
11-03-2005, 05:02 PM
No worse than everyonelse on these forums

Now, this is just an honest question....Why do you care about Roddick's game/talent/results? You're clearly not a fan, so why does he even cross your mind?

I'm seriously curious and would appreciate a heartfelt answer.

Angle Queen
11-03-2005, 05:05 PM
I did make the discussion about his fans but not about his character as a person. Tennis is a world sport it isn't American or Spanish or Swiss, and therefore those "compatriots" we compare Andy to should include players from all countries which would naturally include the rest of the players in the top 5.You're right. And I did. I said, and still maintain, that Andy rightly deserves his spot in a discussion of Federer and Hewitt. Remember, you asked us to compare him to Connors, McEnroe and Sampras...all Americans. Why instead, then, didn't you ask us to compare him to Borg or Lendl? You asked for an American comparison and I gave you one and went on to expand it to the global community that tennis thankfully enjoys.

Andy is not as good a player as them.I personally disagree. I believe him to be as good a player...over the course of his career (which is still far from over)...as them. At any given moment, someone or some player may be 'on' and will prevail but in the grander scheme of things, that's my opinion. I'm still trying to figure out how someone who's consistently been in the Top 5 of the world for the past few years is so consistently criticized as not being 'good' or 'talented.' Wouldn't that we could all say, I'm one of the best in the world at our chosen profession...and mean it.

If we were roughly estimating Andy at this moment is similar to Korda, etc. in results.:scratch: Huh? Results meaning...titles, money, rankings?

What did you mean about statistics? I agree that they don't tell the whole picture, but seeing Andy's game exposed by his top 5 brethren on television does.Statistics can be manipulated to prove just about any point. And as far as Andy's game being exposed by his top 5 Brethren...I don't buy that either.

So let's just take a look at how Andy's done against the Brethren over the past two years. I'll leave out '03 since you seem to think that Andy fans think that's his "glory" year.

Roddick v. Federer (0-5)

'05, Cincinnati, F, Federer 6-3, 7-5
'05, Wimbledon, F, Federer 6-2, 7-6, 6-4
'04, Bangkok, F, Federer 6-4, 6-0
'04, Toronto, F, Federer 7-5, 6-3
'04, Wimbledon, F, Federer 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4

Roddick v. Nadal (1-1)

'04, DC, Final, Nadal 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-2
'04, USO, R64, Roddick 6-0, 6-3, 6-4

Roddick v. Hewitt (2-3)

'05, Cincinnati, S, Roddick 6-4, 7-6
'05, Indian Wells, S, Hewitt 7-6, 6-7, 7-6
'05, AO, S, Hewitt 3-6, 7-6, 7-6, 6-1
'04, Masters, S, Hewitt 6-3, 6-2
'04, Queens, S, Roddick 7-6, 6-3

Roddick v. Safin (3-0)

'04, Masters, RR, Roddick 7-6, 7-6
'04, Bangkok, S, Roddick 7-6, 6-7, 7-6
'04, Indian Wells, R32, Roddick 7-6, 6-2

Ok, Roddick's record against Fed is awful...but so is Hewitt's...and everyone else's. What I see from Roddick against Fed, however, is that they're ALL in the finals and to me...that says something. They were both in it...til the last match. Roddick is split against Nadal, winning against Safin and only one match below .500 with Hewitt (again...all in semifinals).

So, I'm still confused...what is it about Roddick's game...against his Brethren...that's so exposed?

warmy
11-03-2005, 05:19 PM
I think weíre over simplifying the game to only consider technical or physical talents and abilities. I enjoy watching beautiful technique as much as anybody, but thatís not the reason I love Tennis. I love Tennis because itís personal, every point, every game, and every match. Itís not just skills or talent competing, its individual people; whole people with their personalities, talent, character, heart, and skill. I donít see how you can evaluate the attributes and flaws of a Tennis Player without evaluating the attributes and flaws of the person. Theyíre the same.

So if itís true that Andy has achieved top player accomplishments without having the talent of a top player, then I donít understand how that makes him less of a player. In my mind it would only add to his value that he could consistently over-perform to get the results he wants.

Personally I think he tends to under-performs in the realms of pure physical talent and technical skill. So the question for me has always been whether or not his hot streak was an over-performance of his mental and emotional attributes or his current form is an accurate account or under performance of the same.

Even though I freely admit that I think Andy is a very sexy boy, I wouldnít wake up at all hours just to watch a cute ass on the TV. I follow his matches because I want to see what heís capable of. And that I watch with bated breath, every time he plays, excited to see what he does, is more than enough reason for me to be a fan.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:21 PM
Now, this is just an honest question....Why do you care about Roddick's game/talent/results? You're clearly not a fan, so why does he even cross your mind?

I'm seriously curious and would appreciate a heartfelt answer.

I have to admit that the profusion of hype that so many sources were showering upon him rankled when I saw that it was oviously disproportionate to his real talent as a tennis player. The American media hype machine is extremely annoying. And I know the hype is out of Andy's hands but I haven't really ever seen him say anything discouraging it which makes me think he thinks its not over exaggeration. So perhaps I am especially interested in his results because they validate my original opinions of him.

guida
11-03-2005, 05:29 PM
And I know the hype is out of Andy's hands but I haven't really ever seen him say anything discouraging it which makes me think he thinks its not over exaggeration.

You can't possibly be that naÔve, can you?

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 05:32 PM
You can't possibly be that naÔve, can you?
unfortunately he can

warmy
11-03-2005, 05:36 PM
I have to admit that the profusion of hype that so many sources were showering upon him rankled when I saw that it was oviously disproportionate to his real talent as a tennis player. The American media hype machine is extremely annoying. And I know the hype is out of Andy's hands but I haven't really ever seen him say anything discouraging it which makes me think he thinks its not over exaggeration. So perhaps I am especially interested in his results because they validate my original opinions of him.

Wow, it must be nice to afford the ability to take such luxuries with your judgments. I really canít imagine the type of lifestyle you must live that allows you those opportunities.

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 05:39 PM
I have to admit that the profusion of hype that so many sources were showering upon him rankled when I saw that it was oviously disproportionate to his real talent as a tennis player. The American media hype machine is extremely annoying. And I know the hype is out of Andy's hands but I haven't really ever seen him say anything discouraging it which makes me think he thinks its not over exaggeration. So perhaps I am especially interested in his results because they validate my original opinions of him.If you ever took the time to read one of his press conferences where has addressed such issues repeatedly, you will know that this statement of yours could not be more off-base.

If you want people to take your opinions seriously, I recommend you do some research first.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:40 PM
You can't possibly be that naÔve, can you?

It's not about naivete. Andy has had plenty of time to call out the hype machine for their sensationalism and has yet to do so. I have no recourse but to believe the worst because I don't factor in questionable things like his percieved character(most posters do not know the true Andy Roddick, the one his parents and friends see every day and so we cannot know if he doesn't agree with the hype)..

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:44 PM
If you ever took the time to read one of his press conferences where has addressed such issues repeatedly, you will know that this statement of yours could not be more off-base.

If you want people to take your opinions seriously, I recommend you do some research first.

If you mean a few whispish protestations that are completley unheard by the media than I guess he has addressed those issues. And how do you know whether or not I have read some of his press conferences or interviews? I guess you just committed a gross assumption about my character. Shame on you

Deboogle!.
11-03-2005, 05:46 PM
If you mean a few whispish protestations that are completley unheard by the media than I guess he has addressed those issues. And how do you know whether or not I have read some of his press conferences or interviews? I guess you just committed a gross assumption about my character. Shame on youI assumed nothing as your outlandish and unsupported statements that can clearly be proved to be wrong demonstrate that you are speaking without knowledge of anything he's said.

Golfnduck
11-03-2005, 05:49 PM
I assumed nothing as your outlandish and unsupported statements that can clearly be proved to be wrong demonstrate that you are speaking without knowledge of anything he's said.
Deb, you're my hero :worship:

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:52 PM
I assumed nothing as your outlandish and unsupported statements that can clearly be proved to be wrong demonstrate that you are speaking without knowledge of anything he's said.

Until you bring proof that I'm wrong you can't throw words like "outlandish" carelessly either. You have no more evidence behind your arguments than I. Again you resort to namecalling.

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 05:56 PM
Until you bring proof that I'm wrong you can't throw words like "outlandish" carelessly either. You have no more evidence behind your arguments than I. Again you resort to namecalling.

She didn't call you a name....

But I will


JACKASS

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:57 PM
Wow, it must be nice to afford the ability to take such luxuries with your judgments. I really canít imagine the type of lifestyle you must live that allows you those opportunities.

What in the world do you mean? And why the insinuations as to my type of life style? Did you want to say something or just revel in haughtiness?

DJ dropshot
11-03-2005, 05:59 PM
I have to admit that the profusion of hype that so many sources were showering upon him rankled when I saw that it was oviously disproportionate to his real talent as a tennis player. The American media hype machine is extremely annoying. And I know the hype is out of Andy's hands but I haven't really ever seen him say anything discouraging it which makes me think he thinks its not over exaggeration. So perhaps I am especially interested in his results because they validate my original opinions of him.

I appreciate the answer. Thank you. If an American is not your favorite, then I then I can see your frustration if you currently live in the US. Andy gets more press in the US because he is the top US player. This is true of many countries (see Murray mania). Although tennis is an international sport, other players will not get more tennis press than a US player.

In relation to other sports, Andy and all of tennis is seriously under-hyped in the US. Currently, Agassi, Blake and Ginepri have been grabbing the headlines so they seem to be spreading the love a little, but it is unfortunate for some that it remains largely US hype with just a dash of Fed/Nadal. They just aren't gonna hype the Yankees in Boston papers.

They hyped Andy as the future of American tennis and he lived/is living up to it. They did not hype him as the future of world tennis as far as I know.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 05:59 PM
She didn't call you a name....

But I will


JACKASS

Well you just discredited your reputation (if you had one) with that statement

warmy
11-03-2005, 06:00 PM
Shame on Deb? Shame on you. I have never once heard Deb wish any person or any player ill. You should not talk about Debs character when you admit to wanting a person to fail and suffer just because you want to be right. A person who looks for the faults of others to validate themselves is not a person whose opinions can be trusted to hold much value.

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 06:01 PM
Well you just discredited your reputation (if you had one) with that statement

yeah, thats true I did, i just totally made myself look like a complete fool :rolleyes:

but you are still a Jackass

and btw, I am well liked on MTF so :ras:

I save my intelectual debates for things that matter, such as philosophy, politics, religion. I save my insults for people like you.

partygirl
11-03-2005, 06:01 PM
you attack warmy, you attack me (that goes for my other friendlies too) & were both geminis so there is 4 of us- watch out
:armed: :armed: :fiery: :fiery:
this thread is a total fucking joke, so obviously you have a talent for that sorta thing cause i keep comming back- mainly because cool people are here. :cool:

warmy
11-03-2005, 06:06 PM
What in the world do you mean? And why the insinuations as to my type of life style? Did you want to say something or just revel in haughtiness?

Just that how many people can afford to make opinions and just listen to the information that proves us right. Some of us live in the real world where prejudices and high opinions can be a costly luxury. One Iíve never been able to afford myself.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 06:07 PM
Shame on Deb? Shame on you. I have never once heard Deb wish any person or any player ill. You should not talk about Debs character when you admit to wanting a person to fail and suffer just because you want to be right. A person who looks for the faults of others to validate themselves is not a person whose opinions can be trusted to hold much value.

I never said I wanted him to fail or suffer. Only that the fact that he is slumping affirms my original opinions of his talent which many overestimated. Debstah didn't wish me ill, but we weren't talking about that, we were talking about throwing around words lke "outlandish" and resorting to namecalling. And my post(the one several posts back) didn't talk about her character at all.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 06:10 PM
you attack warmy, you attack me (that goes for my other friendlies too) & were both geminis so there is 4 of us- watch out
:armed: :armed: :fiery: :fiery:
this thread is a total fucking joke, so obviously you have a talent for that sorta thing cause i keep comming back- mainly because cool people are here. :cool:

If you are saying I'm funny than thanks. It warms my heart to discover that I have a talent for comedy. And if we are going to talk astrology, Scorpio is supposed to be the most passionate of the signs so I don't think I should fear Geminis.

partygirl
11-03-2005, 06:19 PM
If you are saying I'm funny than thanks. It warms my heart to discover that I have a talent for comedy. And if we are going to talk astrology, Scorpio is supposed to be the most passionate of the signs so I don't think I should fear Geminis.

you know your starting to grow on me, i always love a sparing partner.

but you should always fear a gemini, even if you dont show it...its a smart thing to do, you want to be smart don't you? :)
when one person is standing on both sides of you its okay to be distressed. :boxing: :boxing:

warmy
11-03-2005, 06:21 PM
I never said I wanted him to fail or suffer. Only that the fact that he is slumping affirms my original opinions of his talent which many overestimated. Debstah didn't wish me ill, but we weren't talking about that, we were talking about throwing around words lke "outlandish" and resorting to namecalling. And my post(the one several posts back) didn't talk about her character at all.

You held a negative opinion of someone and paid particular attention to what was happening with their career to validate that opinion. You just admitted it twice.

The comment you made about Deb was that she was unfairly judgmental. To me that is a comment against her character and a completely false one at that, because as a rule, Deb doesnít make snap judgments. One of her best and most prized contributions to this forum is that she is so thoughtful and doesnít ever really dismiss people.

R.Federer
11-03-2005, 06:24 PM
Currently, Agassi, Blake and Ginepri have been grabbing the headlines so they seem to be spreading the love a little.
Yes this they are doing


They hyped Andy as the future of American tennis and he lived/is living up to it. They did not hype him as the future of world tennis as far as I know.

This is not true. If you look back on the press in 2003 (just prior to Wimbledon, through the end of the yr), they definitely thought he was going to win Wimbledon, predicted 7-8 slams, and that he would remain World #1 the next year. He was not just going to save U.S. tennis, but going to lead world 's tennis as per the press then.

Now the press does not talk about his wins and achievements, without discussion of how they are less than others like Roger's. Thta is also annoying to his fan

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:29 PM
Well you just discredited your reputation (if you had one) with that statement

Everytime I see your name...I think of toiletries...gosh I love toiletries....

http://www.lisa-macleod.com/Art%20Direction/bath/bath-toiletries.jpg

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 06:29 PM
You held a negative opinion of someone and paid particular attention to what was happening with their career to validate that opinion. You just admitted it twice.

The comment you made about Deb was that she was unfairly judgmental. To me that is a comment against her character and a completely false one at that, because as a rule, Deb doesnít make snap judgments. One of her best and most prized contributions to this forum is that she is so thoughtful and doesnít ever really dismiss people.

Remember that we have to precise in our comments(again I admitted I wasn't with my first post by ascribing certain attributes to all Roddick fans). I said she couldn't throw around words like "outlandish" without proof herself-not a character judgement. And what is wrong with the using his results to test my opinions of him? Isn't that the scientific method? I had a hypothesis(my negative opinion of his talents) and proved or disproved it by looking at his results coming to a conclusion that he is overrated.

DJ dropshot
11-03-2005, 06:30 PM
Yes this they are doing



This is not true. If you look back on the press in 2003 (just prior to Wimbledon, through the end of the yr), they definitely thought he was going to win Wimbledon, predicted 7-8 slams, and that he would remain World #1 the next year. He was not just going to save U.S. tennis, but going to lead world 's tennis as per the press then.

Now the press does not talk about his wins and achievements, without discussion of how they are less than others like Roger's. Thta is also annoying to his fan

Well, then, my next question is why be irked today about hype over two years ago? And at that time, he was doing well. And did well throughout the summer. No wonder they said that. Now, if they were still saying that, then sure. But no-one is hyping him these days.

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Everytime I see your name...I think of toiletries...gosh I love toiletries....

http://www.lisa-macleod.com/Art%20Direction/bath/bath-toiletries.jpg


I love you :inlove:

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 06:33 PM
Remember that we have to precise in our comments(again I admitted I wasn't with my first post by ascribing certain attributes to all Roddick fans). I said she couldn't throw around words like "outlandish" without proof herself-not a character judgement. And what is wrong with the using his results to test my opinions of him? Isn't that the scientific method? I had a hypothesis(my negative opinion of his talents) and proved or disproved it by looking at his results coming to a conclusion that he is overrated.
Where have you proved that he is overrated. Please, enlighten me.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:35 PM
I love you :inlove:

here to please ;)

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 06:36 PM
I love you :inlove:

Get a room

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:36 PM
Get a room

I would tell you to come but toiletries are standard in most hotel rooms these days.

Tourmalante
11-03-2005, 06:39 PM
Where have you proved that he is overrated. Please, enlighten me.

Andy was predicted to be a greater force in the tennis world than he is(eg. winning GSs every once in awhile along with a TMS, maybe a TMC, and a lot more weeks at #1). There were also expectations that he would be at least a perennial quarterfinalist at slams which does not jive with his recent dismissal at the US OPen and his continuing troubles at Roland Garros.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:42 PM
Andy was predicted to be a greater force in the tennis world than he is(eg. winning GSs every once in awhile along with a TMS, maybe a TMC, and a lot more weeks at #1). There were also expectations that he would be at least a perennial quarterfinalist at slams which does not jive with his recent dismissal at the US OPen and his continuing troubles at Roland Garros.

There was also talk about him being a world number 1 and winning a slam...gosh too bad he never made good on those expectations. Yea, too bad he never won a masters event either. Wow, it's too bad he wasn't in the top three for the last 3 years. Gosh, he's just a nobodies noone that has never done anything.

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:43 PM
There was also talk about him being a world number 1 and winning a slam...gosh too bad he never made good on those expectations. Yea, too bad he never won a masters event either. Wow, it's too bad he wasn't in the top three for the last 3 years. Gosh, he's just a nobodies noone that has never done anything.

:retard:

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:45 PM
:retard:

"Whhy do they call it love? Cuz everyone who has that score clearly is unhappy.."

That's something Seinfeld would say.

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 06:45 PM
Andy was predicted to be a greater force in the tennis world than he is(eg. winning GSs every once in awhile along with a TMS, maybe a TMC, and a lot more weeks at #1). There were also expectations that he would be at least a perennial quarterfinalist at slams which does not jive with his recent dismissal at the US OPen and his continuing troubles at Roland Garros.
Since the very beginning, no one expected him to go far at Roland Garros.
He reached the semis at the Australian Open, and Finals at Wimbledon - how horrible!
He is still young, he has plenty of time to get his weeks at number one, TMS titles, and grand slams. Andre Agassi is considered one of the legends of tennis, and we all know how he was early in his career.
So, I say that you have proven nothing.

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:45 PM
"Whhy do they call it love? Cuz everyone who has that score clearly is unhappy.."

That's something Seinfeld would say.

:yeah:

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:46 PM
hey. :(

Oh don't worry JS eats glue sticks.

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:46 PM
hey. :(

Go Andy :D

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:46 PM
Oh don't worry JS eats glue sticks.

and :drink: glue

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:47 PM
:yeah:

hahaha... :)

Phunkadelicious
11-03-2005, 06:47 PM
Go Andy :D

thats more like it :)

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:47 PM
and :drink: glue

What happens when you poop, does your ass stick together? :)

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:48 PM
What happens when you poop, does your ass stick together? :)

No- just slides out quickly.

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:49 PM
No- just slides out quickly.

Ewww...yuck, glue is a laxative, who knew?

partygirl
11-03-2005, 06:49 PM
i wanna see how petty this thread can become...
because there is no reason for it to have 200 some-odd posts in 2 1/2 days
its becomming a chat thread.

*dirrrty looks*

surfpinky
11-03-2005, 06:50 PM
No- just slides out quickly.
|:

Fumus
11-03-2005, 06:51 PM
i wanna see how petty this thread can become...
because there is no reason for it to have 200 some-odd posts in 2 1/2 days
its becomming a chat thread.

*dirrrty looks*


sorry sorry...

Andy is the best player ever!! No one can stop him!! He is tennis incarnate!!

partygirl
11-03-2005, 06:51 PM
damn it!
i have to go i have class and i cannot miss another one for MTF, as much as i want to.

- see y'all chumps later.


and im serious about the pettyness im loving it and looking forward, so is andy.

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:52 PM
sorry sorry...

Andy is the best player ever!! No one can stop him!! He is tennis incarnate!!

Can't say that enough. :wavey: I will cheer for Andy vs Ferrer, after that :armed:

El Legenda
11-03-2005, 06:53 PM
damn it!i have to go i have class and i cannot miss another one for MTF, as much as i want to.

- see y'all chumps later.
:ras: i have another hour before class :bigclap: