How bad is Roddick? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How bad is Roddick?

dmit424
06-17-2006, 10:46 PM
Was he the most overrated #1 ever? Or someone else?

I'm just upset at the depth of tennis because he's been pretty bad this year and he's going to be ranked 5th or something on Monday...

Kristen
06-18-2006, 03:34 AM
Do you and Langers have the same dealer?

gusman890
06-18-2006, 03:59 AM
at least he was no.1 and making more then you will in a lifetime

Doctor Dance
06-18-2006, 04:01 AM
He has lost his fire when he plays :sad:

brent-o
06-18-2006, 05:46 AM
Was he the most overrated #1 ever? Or someone else?

I'm just upset at the depth of tennis because he's been pretty bad this year and he's going to be ranked 5th or something on Monday...

It's called a monster serve. Gets him out of a lot of situations. Also allows him to stay perched comfortably in the Top 10 without demonstrating any real, convincing Top 10 talent. So, yes, way overrated.

El Legenda
06-18-2006, 06:37 AM
he sucks

General Suburbia
06-18-2006, 06:56 AM
Was he the most overrated #1 ever? Or someone else?

I'm just upset at the depth of tennis because he's been pretty bad this year and he's going to be ranked 5th or something on Monday...
To answer your question simply, no. So what if he's had a bad year? Sampras did too, till he won the US Open after a title-less two years.

partygirl
06-18-2006, 07:02 AM
he sucks
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent014.gif

lordmanji
06-18-2006, 07:12 AM
a lot of things are working against andy right now: slowing down wimbledon courts, heavier balls, change in coaches/tactics. i could see him two years later a better player.

El Legenda
06-18-2006, 07:26 AM
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent014.gif
:hug: :smooch:

yuffchen
06-18-2006, 11:35 AM
He's not bad :p

Ruski
06-18-2006, 11:47 AM
Without his bullet serves, he won't even be ranked in Top10!!!
His game is ordinary! When people figure out to return his serves, he is in trouble!

euroka1
06-18-2006, 12:02 PM
This article was in Tennis Magazine late last year:

Things haven't changed much except that Goldfine was found wanting and Andy retreated yet further into the family.

What it comes down to is that Andy is still pretty good but hasn't come up to expectations.

------------------------------------------------------------------


WHAT CAN YOU DO?
YOU'RE ANDY RODDICK. AT 21, YOU NABBED A U.S. OPEN TITLE AND SCRAMBLED TO THE TOP OF THE TENNIS HEAP. BUT IN THE TWO YEARS SINCE, YOU'VE BEEN TAKEN DOWN ONE NOTCH, THEN TWO, THEN THREE. WHEN THE OTHER GUYS ARE IMPROVING AND YOU'RE NOT. . .By BRUCE SCHOENFELD


YOU'RE ANDY RODDICK ON A STEAMY AUGUST AFTERNOON, AND YOU HAVEN'T WON A GRAND SLAM TOURNAMENT IN ALMOST TWO YEARS. You stand shirtless at the baseline of a practice court in Washington D.C.—offering a glimpse of the topography that a strenuous workout regimen has etched into your abdomen—and rifle ground strokes at the head of your coach, Dean Goldfine, who lingers in the general vicinity of the net.

You hit three, four, five in a row with increasing urgency, but Goldfine manages to deflect each back over the net. With your face screwed into a grimace, you hit the next shot as if you're channeling all the frustration of the past two years into one swing. Goldfine gets a racquet on it like a hockey goalie, but that's all he can do. The ball ricochets into the next court.

An awkward silence settles over the two dozen fans who have gathered to watch you hit. It's as if they've unwittingly stumbled into a domestic dispute, except that only you seem irked. Finally someone breaks the tension by saying, “Is that why Brad Gilbert quit?”

“He wouldn't have stayed in there to take it,” you snap. “He would have been at the side fence, talking to someone.”

It's just a quip, one of those blink-of-an-eye one-liners that you seem to toss off so easily in press conferences and live interviews. You may have the quickest mind in tennis. But as usual, your wit provides access to thoughts that a more considered answer wouldn't.

With Gilbert, you won the 2003 U.S. Open and finished that season ranked No. 1 in the world. In the months that followed, Gilbert enjoyed the attention, talking up his role in your success and promoting his book, but you stopped winning the big tournaments. Worse, perhaps, you lost your status as the crossover star who just might save men's tennis. Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal are the hot names now.

In came Goldfine, whose résumé includes stints with Todd Martin, Aaron Krickstein, and Jared Palmer. He's never had a pupil win a major or spend a day at No. 1, but his loyalty is unquestioned. He's a coach, friend, psychologist, Yahtzee partner, even a human target, if that's what you want.

Life with Goldfine is smoother, but you remain edgy. In your first tournament after Wimbledon, you lose to Robby Ginepri in Indianapolis, then criticize the ATP schedule as “ridiculous.” You break a commitment to play in Los Angeles and go home to Austin, where you sprint up hills and lift weights. In Washington, you crack a Mercedes-Benz logo with your racquet during one practice session, then ask to have a spectator removed during another. You can't believe you showed up to play San Jose in February after reaching the Australian Open semifinals and were greeted by the media not with plaudits but with a post-mortem: Why didn't you win? You're playing better under Goldfine than you ever did with Gilbert, yet everyone wonders what's wrong with your game.

Truth is, there are days when you wonder, too. Most of them happen when you're across the net from Roger Federer. “He'll have to wait for Federer to slip a little bit,” says Carlos Moya about you— and after the way Federer played at Wimbledon, you can't help but think the same. “It gets frustrating,” Goldfine says. “Andy's out there on the court, he feels like he played the perfect point, and he loses the point. He says, 'What do I have to do to win?'”

At its most discouraging, such as after losing to No. 62 Jose Acasuso at Roland Garros or No. 68 Gilles Muller at the U.S. Open, you begin to doubt your future. Before Wimbledon, you tell British journalist Paul Weaver that your goal is “to win at least another Slam.” To Weaver, that seems like setting your sights astonishingly low. Federer, he writes, “could well win three or four more titles at Wimbledon alone.”

“Roddick beats lower-ranked players very consistently,” Federer says, but that seems like damning with faint praise because you sure can't beat him . You've won only once in 11 tries, taken just four of 28 sets lifetime. You're magnanimous, handling the press conferences with grace, yet it feels like you're wearing someone else's suit. You're no Pat Rafter, equally comfortable at No. 1 or No. 5, or Yevgeny Kafelnikov, with inscrutable goals and mysterious motivations. You grew up playing and following team sports, a prototypical American who embraces the Lombardi ethos of winning no matter what the cost. “Being No. 1 is the American mind-set, and you see that in Andy,” says Tarik Benhabiles, your coach from 1999 to 2003. “He has to be No. 1 in everything.”

To see you play horse or poker, it becomes clear why even losing to a man who played three perfect sets at Wimbledon keeps you up at night. You once went an entire season as a 12-and-under playing the Florida circuit and beyond and never lost a match. “Andy's tasted it,” Taylor Dent says. “I'm sure if you had him on the couch, he'd say he honestly believes he has the talent to be No. 1.”

But how to get from here to there? Maybe you're thinking about that as you turn back to the practice court and slap a forehand into the net. “Oh, wow, that was special,” you sneer, your contempt turned toward nobody but yourself.

YOU'RE ANDY RODDICK, AND PEOPLE KNOW THE NAME. You became famous before you could consider the ramifications. Your dalliance with Mandy Moore was far more publicized than the weakness in your backhand. A larger American audience saw you host Saturday Night Live than win the U.S. Open.

Your career has had a peculiar trajectory, more hang glider than bell curve. You'd barely begun being the hunter, a talented young American on the rise, when you became the hunted. One minute you were helping Pete Sampras prepare for a Davis Cup tie, and the next minute, it seemed, you were beating him, on your way to fulfilling veteran tennis journalist Curry Kirkpatrick's 2002 prediction that you would “rescue, regenerate, and own American tennis.”

You're barely 23, yet the expectations weighing on you are those of a seasoned champion. “At 17, if I won a match, that was a great result,” you say. “Now, if I don't win the tournament, [journalists] will be writing stuff about me.”

Your game is a career now, with all that entails. It funds a foundation, a retinue, a way of life: sushi dinners at Matsuhisa and steaks at the Ivy. Gone are the trucker caps and unsightly visors, replaced by Lacoste Wimbledon whites. They make you look as uncomfortable as an 8-year-old at a wedding, but they fill your bank account.

naughty_sprite
06-18-2006, 12:07 PM
Was he the most overrated #1 ever? Or someone else?

I'm just upset at the depth of tennis because he's been pretty bad this year and he's going to be ranked 5th or something on Monday...

he was never a child prodigy which is cool that he's done so well. I dont think he's overrated. He was #1 because he beat people, end of!!!

naughty_sprite
06-18-2006, 12:08 PM
Without his bullet serves, he won't even be ranked in Top10!!!
His game is ordinary! When people figure out to return his serves, he is in trouble!

they already have, Blake worked it out yesterday

stebs
06-18-2006, 12:30 PM
Roddick is a very good player. He is top 5 material when on form without a shadow of a doubt. It's true that if you took away his huge serve he wouldn't be that good but that's true of all players best shots. If you took away Federer's forehand he wouldn't be number 1.

Anyway, Roddick has a good forehand as well as serve and can play great tennis. Look at the match against Gonzalez, when you play like that on a fast court you don't lose (Federer doesn't count :p).

RickDaStick
08-22-2007, 09:16 PM
Pretty bad


From the Sun

"Yet in 2007, his first full season under Connors, Roddick has had one of the worst years of his career as a returner (see table). This year, he has won only 17% of his return games, 5% less than last year. In the four return categories tracked by the men's tour — return games won, points won off first serves, points won off second serves, and break points won — Roddick ranks among the worst in the game. He doesn't break the top 50 in a single category and is ranked 60 or below in three of them.

Consider a few of the men whose return numbers are similar to Roddick's: Teimuraz Gabashvili, Benjamin Becker, and Florent Serra. Combined, those men have two career singles titles, an overall losing record, and world rankings in the 50s and below. They are all journeymen. Roddick's serve, which rates among the very best in every category tracked by the tour, continues to save him from being one of them."

:haha: :haha: :haha:

tangerine_dream
08-22-2007, 09:22 PM
IL's mad because nobody's talking about Ivan's draw in the USO draw thread. :hug:

Fumus
08-22-2007, 09:23 PM
Oo not you again.

ReturnWinner
08-22-2007, 09:24 PM
its very true and funny but to be sincere Ljubicic is very close to him in that
Pretty bad


From the Sun

"Yet in 2007, his first full season under Connors, Roddick has had one of the worst years of his career as a returner (see table). This year, he has won only 17% of his return games, 5% less than last year. In the four return categories tracked by the men's tour — return games won, points won off first serves, points won off second serves, and break points won — Roddick ranks among the worst in the game. He doesn't break the top 50 in a single category and is ranked 60 or below in three of them.

Consider a few of the men whose return numbers are similar to Roddick's: Teimuraz Gabashvili, Benjamin Becker, and Florent Serra. Combined, those men have two career singles titles, an overall losing record, and world rankings in the 50s and below. They are all journeymen. Roddick's serve, which rates among the very best in every category tracked by the tour, continues to save him from being one of them."

:haha: :haha: :haha:

GlennMirnyi
08-22-2007, 09:45 PM
Rios is the most overrated #1 ever.

Johnny Groove
08-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Rios is the most overrated #1 ever.

WTF? :spit: :rolls:

What does Rios have to do with anything? :lol:

rocketassist
08-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Roddick is a very good player. He is top 5 material when on form without a shadow of a doubt. It's true that if you took away his huge serve he wouldn't be that good but that's true of all players best shots. If you took away Federer's forehand he wouldn't be number 1.

Anyway, Roddick has a good forehand as well as serve and can play great tennis. Look at the match against Gonzalez, when you play like that on a fast court you don't lose (Federer doesn't count :p).

Andy has a very average forehand nowadays. It's not powerful and it doesn't get the job done anymore.

andyroddick4me
08-22-2007, 11:38 PM
so to address the whole number one issue,when roddick was number one, nobody could return his serve. the point is he did what he had to do to reach number one and win a grand slam that suited him- he came up with a weapon nobody else had ever seen and yes, it did win him a lot of points. i think it is great he can consistently use this weapon to keep winning points even though some people have caught up with how to challenge it.

and anyway, if ALL amazing servers with crappy other shots were in the top ten then you probably would have seen karlovic as a consistent top ten player seeing as he has been on tour longer than roddick. do you? NO! what i'm trying to say is roddick's other shots must not be as HORRIBLE as some people seem to think.

to sum it up? PEOPLE LIKE YOU NEED TO SHUT THEIR MOUTHS-- ANDY RODDICK HAS DONE WHAT HE HAS TO DO IN ORDER TO BE NUMBER ONE, WIN A SLAM, AND CONSISTENTLY STAY IN THE TOP 20 FOR 5 YEARS. how about you try that?

GlennMirnyi
08-23-2007, 03:01 AM
WTF? :spit: :rolls:

What does Rios have to do with anything? :lol:

Read below.

Was he the most overrated #1 ever? Or someone else?

I'm just upset at the depth of tennis because he's been pretty bad this year and he's going to be ranked 5th or something on Monday...

Any other question? :)

Johnny Groove
08-23-2007, 03:04 AM
Read below.



Any other question? :)

Gotcha ;)

Thread got merged i beleive

Marek.
08-23-2007, 03:06 AM
His ground game is absolute shit right now. I don't understand why he can't put any power or depth on his forehand anymore.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:08 AM
he sucks

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/violent014.gif

Unfortunately you are not quite able to catch him...

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:12 AM
Roddick is a very good player. He is top 5 material when on form without a shadow of a doubt. It's true that if you took away his huge serve he wouldn't be that good but that's true of all players best shots. If you took away Federer's forehand he wouldn't be number 1.

Anyway, Roddick has a good forehand as well as serve and can play great tennis. Look at the match against Gonzalez, when you play like that on a fast court you don't lose (Federer doesn't count :p).

It just all proves the importance of a great serve.. if his serve was reasonably decent Roddick may well be one of those journey men. If Federer only had a reasonably decent forehand he still has top 10 talent in other areas... Roddick doesn't, the serve is quite literally his saving grace.

Viken01
08-23-2007, 03:19 AM
I used not to like him when he won the USO, but nowadays I actually like him, because he is fighting to stay in the top 10 and he makes change in his game, that is a good point for him.

GlennMirnyi
08-23-2007, 03:22 AM
His ground game is absolute shit right now. I don't understand why he can't put any power or depth on his forehand anymore.

Right now? You mean since 2003?

Marek.
08-23-2007, 03:27 AM
Right now? You mean since 2003?

I would say since 2004, he could still hit a forehand then. I'm pretty sure my forehand's harder than his now.:o

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:29 AM
3 years of ground game mediocrity from A Rod...

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:30 AM
Really, I do admire his tenacity but he is well and truly the player I like to watch the least in the top 30 or so, his ability to actually be an effective shotmaker is almost non existent...

BlakeorHenman
08-23-2007, 03:33 AM
He's an okay competitor i guess... but what tennis skills does he actually posess in a non-serving capacity?

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:33 AM
None that are top 50 quality.

partygirl
08-23-2007, 03:35 AM
Unfortunately you are not quite able to catch him...
I've got him right where i want his ass.;)

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:36 AM
I've got him right where i want his ass.;)

............. That is just great.

Melvins
08-23-2007, 03:47 AM
It just all proves the importance of a great serve.. if his serve was reasonably decent Roddick may well be one of those journey men. If Federer only had a reasonably decent forehand he still has top 10 talent in other areas... Roddick doesn't, the serve is quite literally his saving grace.

Well, if Federer didn't have a great service, he loses in Wimbledon's final against Nadal.;)

Roddick's serve is one of the bests of the world, but I don't say that is the best!

BlakeorHenman
08-23-2007, 03:49 AM
Well, if Federer didn't have a great service, he loses in Wimbledon's final against Nadal.;)

Roddick's serve is one of the bests of the world, but I don't say that is the best!


Which makes him super boring to watch (and i say this as an american). Even Sampras could volley...

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:50 AM
Well, if Federer didn't have a great service, he loses in Wimbledon's final against Nadal.;)

Roddick's serve is one of the bests of the world, but I don't say that is the best!

Like I said, Federer has many facets to his play that are top 10... Roddick has 1. If Federer only had a reasonably decent serve, he would still be a prolific multi GS champion. Yes, Roddick's serve is one of the best in the world.

Melvins
08-23-2007, 03:52 AM
Which makes him super boring to watch (and i say this as an american). Even Sampras could volley...

What do which makes him super boring? Not be the best server in the world?

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:52 AM
Sampras had great volleys as we all know and he had a decent enough ground game. He was also an immense shotmaker. When do you EVER see Roddick win a point that he shouldn't have won?

In short, I agree.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:53 AM
What do which makes him super boring? Not be the best server in the world?

I realise that you directed this question to somebody else...


For me it is his completely non existent capacity as a shotmaker that makes him incredibly dull to watch. If he had his current groundstrokes but could sometimes pull the rabbit out of the hat then I would find watching him play far less torturous.

BlakeorHenman
08-23-2007, 03:55 AM
What do which makes him super boring? Not be the best server in the world?


It goes without saying...

The fact that he's ALL SERVE...

Allure
08-23-2007, 04:04 AM
You can't compare Federer to Roddick. Federer is good in every aspect (FH, BH, volley, serve, movement, groundstrokes) whereas Roddick is good in two areas. (Serve, FH) So its dumb to say, ''Take away any aspect of anyone's game and they suck."

BlakeorHenman
08-23-2007, 04:08 AM
But it's not unfair to say "take away no aspects from his game and he's super duper boring to watch"

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 04:12 AM
It isn't dumb... If you took away Roddick's biggest weapon and made it a moderate stroke/technique he would tumble out of the top 40 or 50 probably... take away the biggest weapon of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Youzhny and they would still all have a good chance of being top 30-40 players and some are so multi-faceted that they would probably not lose many ranking places on where they are now.. such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Haas, Gasquet and Youzhny.

All these guys could have their biggest strength replaced with a merely reasonable version of that stroke and they would survive near the top.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 04:13 AM
My point is not that Roddick doesn't deserve to be where he is, he does. My point is to show the huge importance of a great serve and how it can help you through matches where actually your opponent is better in more facets of the game than you are. Kudos to Roddick for making sure that possibly the most important stroke in tennis is his super weapon.

However the fact that this is the case makes Roddick boring to watch IMO.

BlakeorHenman
08-23-2007, 04:15 AM
My point is not that Roddick doesn't deserve to be where he is, he does. My point is to show the huge importance of a great serve and how it can help you through matches where actually your opponent is better in more facets of the game than you are. Kudos to Roddick for making sure that possibly the most important stroke in tennis is his super weapon.

However the fact that this is the case makes Roddick boring to watch IMO.

Actually, I wouldn't say "kudos"... I would just say "you're lucky"

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 04:18 AM
Ha! Together we have been pretty brutal about Roddick, let's leave him alone for a while. :)

I am off to bed.

StevoTG
08-23-2007, 04:18 AM
Yeah Rodick is bad, just look at his record in slams and...... oh wait, he's been consistently challenging (semi's and finals) for years now and has been in the top 10 for ages. Give Andy some credit, how come I don't see posts asking ``how bad is Baggy`` :confused: (I've got nothing against Marcos by the way)

bad gambler
08-23-2007, 04:21 AM
He's been in the top 10 for a long time now so he can't be that bad

tangerine_dream
08-23-2007, 04:22 AM
All these guys could have their biggest strength replaced with a merely reasonable version of that stroke and they would survive near the top.
Actually, that's what Roddick has been doing for a while now: surviving near the top. His serve isn't nearly as potent as it used to be, neither is his forehand, his two bread-and-butter shots are now average. His volleys are okay sometimes, most of the time they're not okay. His backhand is better but still not a weapon. He's not even moving as fast as he used to. So if you think about it, Roddick really has no weapons.

So how much longer are we going to have to wait for his inevitable tumble out of the top 50 as knowledgeable MTFers like yourself have been predicting for four years now? The guy clearly can't play tennis. I'm tired of waiting for Roddick's End to arrive. What's the hold up? :(

Allure
08-23-2007, 04:32 AM
It isn't dumb... If you took away Roddick's biggest weapon and made it a moderate stroke/technique he would tumble out of the top 40 or 50 probably... take away the biggest weapon of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Haas, Gasquet, Hewitt, Youzhny and they would still all have a good chance of being top 30-40 players and some are so multi-faceted that they would probably not lose many ranking places on where they are now.. such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Haas, Gasquet and Youzhny.

All these guys could have their biggest strength replaced with a merely reasonable version of that stroke and they would survive near the top.

That's what I mean. Roddick defenders says ''Well take away Fed's fh and he's not top 10.'' But Fed, Gasquet, Safin to me have other weapons to rely on like Fed is good at everything. Whereas Roddick is limited that's why hes all serve.

tangerine_dream
08-23-2007, 04:33 AM
how come I don't see posts asking ``how bad is Baggy`` :confused: (I've got nothing against Marcos by the way)
Because most people know that Roddick is a better player than Baggy and therefore the expectations on Roddick are very different from what we expect from Baggy. :)

groundstroke
08-23-2007, 05:43 AM
It's called a monster serve. Gets him out of a lot of situations. Also allows him to stay perched comfortably in the Top 10 without demonstrating any real, convincing Top 10 talent. So, yes, way overrated.
Could you be more wrong?

Adler
08-23-2007, 11:58 AM
He's been in the top 10 for a long time now so he can't be that bad
that's the point

mickymouse
08-23-2007, 12:51 PM
Some expect him to fill Sampras and Agassi's shoes, so he's perceived as 'bad' when his results cannot match up to theirs. Also, being in the same era as Federer means that many use Federer as a yardstick for how 'good' Roddick is...and we know the answer to that question.

Winston's Human
08-23-2007, 12:57 PM
All I can say is that Roddick has had quite a bit of success for someone who is a "bad" tennis player.

WF4EVER
08-23-2007, 01:29 PM
Someone should start a poll: Who has the most delusional fans on MTF?

LeChuck
08-23-2007, 01:33 PM
Roddick has had not a respectable career, but an outstanding one. Cards on the table, the guy is one of my least favourite active players. However he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for amassing such excellent achievements in spite of his technical deficiencies. I only wish that my favourite player, Nalbandian, had been as 'bad' as Roddick over the last few years.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 02:20 PM
Actually, that's what Roddick has been doing for a while now: surviving near the top. His serve isn't nearly as potent as it used to be, neither is his forehand, his two bread-and-butter shots are now average. His volleys are okay sometimes, most of the time they're not okay. His backhand is better but still not a weapon. He's not even moving as fast as he used to. So if you think about it, Roddick really has no weapons.

So how much longer are we going to have to wait for his inevitable tumble out of the top 50 as knowledgeable MTFers like yourself have been predicting for four years now? The guy clearly can't play tennis. I'm tired of waiting for Roddick's End to arrive. What's the hold up? :(

WRONG. Roddick is in the top 5 for percentage of service games held, his serve is still a major weapon, for sure. I have not predicted that he will tumble out of the top 50, I have said that if his serve was just average he probably would. Roddick's decline will probably be slow-ish because his serve will always be very good.

Fumus
08-23-2007, 03:02 PM
Alright enough BS...

Bad? Roddick is bad? How is Roddick bad? Because his game isn't the type that you particularly like to watch? Because he supposedly can't rally from the back of the court? There are plenty of players with all the tools and the talent...what makes Roddick a champion is the fact that he makes the most out of his game. When he needs a first serve he can find it, when he's serving out a set he doesn't choke, in the big matches he steps up his game. Someone like Nalbandian, Gasquet, Blake, etc...these super talented guys have made a career of not doing these things. Roddick has heart, that's why we...his fans, that's why we love him. Hewitt is the same way, he's got heart...except he doesn't even have a big weapon...he's just got foot speed and spirit. So what if Roddick isn't a flashy shotmaker? So what if he lacks proper technique on some shots? It's even more incredible, he's even more of a better player, than someone who does have all those weapons because he has got to find ways to win, grind out points, and be mentally very tough. How bad is someone who can do that and beat the majority of his peers?

Rogiman
08-23-2007, 03:12 PM
Alright enough BS...

Bad? Roddick is bad? How is Roddick bad? Because his game isn't the type that you particularly like to watch? Because he supposedly can't rally from the back of the court? There are plenty of players with all the tools and the talent...what makes Roddick a champion is the fact that he makes the most out of his game. When he needs a first serve he can find it, when he's serving out a set he doesn't choke, in the big matches he steps up his game. Someone like Nalbandian, Gasquet, Blake, etc...these super talented guys have made a career of not doing these things. Roddick has heart, that's why we...his fans, that's why we love him. Hewitt is the same way, he's got heart...except he doesn't even have a big weapon...he's just got foot speed and spirit. So what if Roddick isn't a flashy shotmaker? So what if he lacks proper technique on some shots? It's even more incredible, he's even more of a better player, than someone who does have all those weapons because he has got to find ways to win, grind out points, and be mentally very tough. How bad is someone who can do that and beat the majority of his peers?

He still sucks :shrug:

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:13 PM
He does have a lot of heart Fumus, I agree.. and credit to him.

Action Jackson
08-23-2007, 03:17 PM
Roddick has done very well in relation to his talents, so I love watching the guy lose, and he shits me, but the facts are considering how bad he is, it really shows the other guys with more natural talent that are ranked behind him in a very poor light.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:23 PM
I do however believe that the game has evolved into a state right now where you need a solid backhand and forehand to have a chance at winning a GS, so we may well not see Roddick in another GS final again.. perhaps not many more semis either. Thoughts?

groundstroke
08-23-2007, 03:39 PM
For such a bad player, who was ranked 1 not so long ago, and 3 about 2 weeks ago, who's won a GS and reached 3 finals and lost to a player who no one can really match, and he still took a set from him at the USO f last year. The fact is , if he's so rubbish, why has he won two titles this year? (Queen's Club and Washington) He reached the semi's of some ATP master's too, and Aussie Open. Quarters at Wimbledon, which he should of won.
And remember, he beat Federer this year, I just think he needs to work on those break points.
And to the moron who said his forehand was harder than Roddick? You've have a bigger fucking ego than the planet. Roddick hasn't exactly got the best forehand in the game, but saying it's mediocre makes you look stupid; why?
After winning two titles, reaching many semi's and quarters of important events, his serves can't of won that all, no, many people have figured his serve.
And maybe I forget, but he did give Federer a challenge last year in the US Open, winning many backhand and forehand points, he just couldn't hold it and hit the ball high and deep at times.
A lot of tennis players could wish they were as "bad" as Roddick.

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 03:41 PM
Good post except for the fact that Federers loss against Roddick means absolutely nothing as it was an EXHIBITION match.

Forehander
08-23-2007, 03:44 PM
I think federer would be better off if he possessed the Roddick Serve though his serve now is good enough already.

groundstroke
08-23-2007, 04:24 PM
Good post except for the fact that Federers loss against Roddick means absolutely nothing as it was an EXHIBITION match.
Did Federer try hard? I heard about his exhibition match with Nadal, and he didn't try too hard while Nadal was playing hard for every point?

MatchFederer
08-23-2007, 04:27 PM
Did Federer try hard? I heard about his exhibition match with Nadal, and he didn't try too hard while Nadal was playing hard for every point?

Federer spent large portions of the match serve and volleying on first and sometimes SECOND serves... he just doesn't do that in a competative match. As you probably know, he went on to demolish Roddick 2 weeks later in the semi finals of the Australian Open, producing two of the finest sets (the 2nd and 3rd) in tennis history.

gusman890
08-23-2007, 04:31 PM
I saw a quote in today's paper, and I'll try to find it online.

But Davydenko basically said "Roddick isnt good from the back of the court, Blake only has a good forehand, But Young is solid from both sides and can hit winners without difficultly."

Fumus
08-23-2007, 06:50 PM
He still sucks :shrug:

Sucks? Compared to who? Federer? Nadal? Or is that just your fading opinion.

Roddick has done very well in relation to his talents, so I love watching the guy lose, and he shits me, but the facts are considering how bad he is, it really shows the other guys with more natural talent that are ranked behind him in a very poor light.

Again with this? There are other talents besides strokes, and flashy winners that make a player.GWH, so to say someone is bad because they lack what you call talent...that's just a little narrow to say because it's only on the surface.

I do however believe that the game has evolved into a state right now where you need a solid backhand and forehand to have a chance at winning a GS, so we may well not see Roddick in another GS final again.. perhaps not many more semis either. Thoughts?

My thoughts are you're wrong. The game will never evolve to a point when someone like Roddick can't win the games biggest titles. Roddick might get old, lose confidence, drift down the rankings but...with the power of his serve and his forehand...on any relatively fast surface you have to consider him a threat for the title.

Action Jackson
08-23-2007, 07:03 PM
Again with this? There are other talents besides strokes, and flashy winners that make a player.GWH, so to say someone is bad because they lack what you call talent...that's just a little narrow to say because it's only on the surface.
.

Roddick has overachieved and that is a lot better than underachieving. The difference between Roddick and Karlovic, at least Roddick has a forehand that can help him win points besides his serve often enough to be competitive for the most part and he has big enough tournaments played on surfaces that suit his game.

He is not a great mover, he is not one of the best returner, but cause when he has a huge serving day, that pressures the other player who just serving to hold on, and he can get breaks of serve through that. but look what happens when he plays a guy like Murray, Federer and he gets exposed for what he doesn't have.

Average volleys, when not under pression, he volleys well, average backhand which was a lot better than when it was poor, but this was harder to get to when he had his big year in 2003.

I know exactly what I am saying when it comes to why he has overachieved.

Fumus
08-23-2007, 08:03 PM
Roddick has overachieved and that is a lot better than underachieving. The difference between Roddick and Karlovic, at least Roddick has a forehand that can help him win points besides his serve often enough to be competitive for the most part and he has big enough tournaments played on surfaces that suit his game.

He is not a great mover, he is not one of the best returner, but cause when he has a huge serving day, that pressures the other player who just serving to hold on, and he can get breaks of serve through that. but look what happens when he plays a guy like Murray, Federer and he gets exposed for what he doesn't have. The same thing happens when Nadal plays Federer for example and some his strengths are neutralized/weaknesses are attacked. No one would say Federer is being exposed for what he really is.

Average volleys, when not under pression, he volleys well, average backhand which was a lot better than when it was poor, but this was harder to get to when he had his big year in 2003.

I know exactly what I am saying when it comes to why he has overachieved.


The difference between Roddick and Karlovic is alot actually. Roddick isn't a great mover but he moves a whole hell of alot better than Karlovic does. Roddick has some of idea of how to construct a point, and has the ability to create winners from a neutral or even defensive position. Also Andy has a competitive fire and drive that he can use to will himself to victory, all great champions have that, Karlovic surely does not.

Andy's not a flashy shot maker, he doesn't have sublime touch...but he uses what he can do well to good effect. Against some players what he does well isn't effective, or isn't as effective due to a poor match-up. It doesn't however expose Roddick for what he really is, as other posters have said...it merely neutralizes his strength so his opponents can attack his weakness.

I don't believe in overachieving, I believe that you are given certain talents in life. Whether it's physical, mental, or intangible...you can't overachieve or underachieve, all these words mean is that you did not correctly gauge one's actual potential correctly in the first place.

nisha
08-23-2007, 08:36 PM
when you make tons of money through sponsorship deals why would you try and put 100% into matches......especially when it doesnt come that naturally.

tangerine_dream
08-23-2007, 08:47 PM
WRONG. Roddick is in the top 5 for percentage of service games held, his serve is still a major weapon, for sure. I have not predicted that he will tumble out of the top 50, I have said that if his serve was just average he probably would. Roddick's decline will probably be slow-ish because his serve will always be very good.
But, but....I thought everybody had Roddick's one dimensional serve all figured out? That's what knowledgeable MTFers keep saying. He has one pitch, the fastball, how hard can it be to return it? :confused:

Anway, I get a kick out of the Federer fans who keep bashing Roddick as a no-talent. They're basically playing right into Sampras' hands when he says that Federer's era is weak. Where's the honor for the GOAT when he keeps beating a no talent hack like Roddick in slam finals? At least Sampras had to deal with a true talent like Agassi.

So yeah, keep on proving Sampras right. :drive:

I saw a quote in today's paper, and I'll try to find it online.

But Davydenko basically said "Roddick isnt good from the back of the court, Blake only has a good forehand, But Young is solid from both sides and can hit winners without difficultly."
Since when did Davydenko's opinion on anything carry any weight?

Roddick-Davydenko 4-0
Blake-Davydenko 6-0

Pretty sad that these American players who only have one good shot keep owning his ass so much. :haha:

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-23-2007, 08:48 PM
Of course Roddick is a joke.

He's lost to Federer 13 times.

He is part of the clown era which Federer dominated before the Spartans Rafa and Nole showed up.

groundstroke
08-23-2007, 09:04 PM
Of course Roddick is a joke.

He's lost to Federer 13 times.

He is part of the clown era which Federer dominated before the Spartans Rafa and Nole showed up.
Haha like they can do any better. Federer bagelled and destroyed Nadal on clay and he has a 4-1 record against Djokovic. Hahahahahahah Calling Rafa and Nole Spartans LMAO.

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 12:45 AM
Sucks? Compared to who? Federer? Nadal? Or is that just your fading opinion.
I wasn't being serious here ;)

Actually, when he played Safin earlier in the year at the AO, I noticed one thing:

Both are not at the top of their games anymore, Roddick's forehand has become kind of loopy, Safin's lost his movement, but they still hit the ball more cleanly than most other players, you could have told that by the wonderful sound coming off their rackets during the rallies.

I remember one of the posters here shared his experiences from a DC tie he had attended and said that from his seat it was obvious Roddick was hitting the ball much more cleanly than James Blake. That he's a much better competetor goes without saying, but his groundies are severely underrated I suppose.

GlennMirnyi
08-24-2007, 02:32 AM
Someone should start a poll: Who has the most delusional fans on MTF?

Safin fans, no doubt.

I think federer would be better off if he possessed the Roddick Serve though his serve now is good enough already.

Don't be stupid, Federer's serve is much better. Serving isn't about speed, it's about placement.

jcempire
08-24-2007, 02:52 AM
Haha like they can do any better. Federer bagelled and destroyed Nadal on clay and he has a 4-1 record against Djokovic. Hahahahahahah Calling Rafa and Nole Spartans LMAO.

Djok finally answer, Show.......that he can beat Roger on any Hard court

MatchFederer
08-24-2007, 04:13 AM
But, but....I thought everybody had Roddick's one dimensional serve all figured out? That's what knowledgeable MTFers keep saying. He has one pitch, the fastball, how hard can it be to return it? :confused:

Anyway, I get a kick out of the Federer fans who keep bashing Roddick as a no-talent. They're basically playing right into Sampras' hands when he says that Federer's era is weak. Where's the honor for the GOAT when he keeps beating a no talent hack like Roddick in slam finals? At least Sampras had to deal with a true talent like Agassi.

So yeah, keep on proving Sampras right. :drive:




We both know that Mr Roddick has very good statistics for holding his serve... it is above 90% I believe... top 5.


I am not sure why the era debate needed to be brought up but I will just say that neither era has been astonishingly strong but Federers could well yet prove to be... Agassi went walkabouts too often.

gjalex
08-24-2007, 04:34 AM
Roddick is pretty bad, he has only managed a 45 - 12 record this year, such a garbage player. Why hes probably even worse than 4 -7 or so players in the world! Pathetic!

News flash: Serving is a part of tennis.

gjalex
08-24-2007, 04:45 AM
Roddick has a better record than Ferrero, clearly. As far as overrated number ones go, mind you I don't think either of them were overrated.

Allure
08-24-2007, 06:41 AM
Alright enough BS...

Bad? Roddick is bad? How is Roddick bad? Because his game isn't the type that you particularly like to watch? Because he supposedly can't rally from the back of the court? There are plenty of players with all the tools and the talent...what makes Roddick a champion is the fact that he makes the most out of his game. When he needs a first serve he can find it, when he's serving out a set he doesn't choke, in the big matches he steps up his game. Someone like Nalbandian, Gasquet, Blake, etc...these super talented guys have made a career of not doing these things. Roddick has heart, that's why we...his fans, that's why we love him. Hewitt is the same way, he's got heart...except he doesn't even have a big weapon...he's just got foot speed and spirit. So what if Roddick isn't a flashy shotmaker? So what if he lacks proper technique on some shots? It's even more incredible, he's even more of a better player, than someone who does have all those weapons because he has got to find ways to win, grind out points, and be mentally very tough. How bad is someone who can do that and beat the majority of his peers?

Honest question and not to be rude or judgmental. You say you like Roddick because he has heart and finds way to win with his less than stellar game. So do you like him for winning and not because of his great game? So if he doesn't win, will you stop liking him? Since you don't really admire his game but his winning ways, if he never wins you won't like him anymore because it's not like you can say ''But I still love his game despite the fact that he loses.''

NYCtennisfan
08-24-2007, 07:15 AM
Don't be stupid, Federer's serve is much better. Serving isn't about speed, it's about placement.

No, it's not. Yes, Federer places his serve better, but it's not an overall better serve. Federer is better than Roddick in these areas:

-FH CC, FH DTL
-BH CC, BH DTL, slice
-FH return, BH return (most of the time)
-FH and BH volley
-Movement
-Point construction
-passing shots

1st serve points won: Roddick 81%, Federer 77%
Service game held: Roddick 91%, Federer 88%

Federer is better than Roddick in every aspect of the game yet wins less points off of his 1st serve and holds less often than Roddick. This stat has been true every year that Roddick and Federer have been on tour. WHY? Because Roddick's 1st serve is better than Federer's.

Forehander
08-24-2007, 07:26 AM
No, it's not. Yes, Federer places his serve better, but it's not an overall better serve. Federer is better than Roddick in these areas:

-FH CC, FH DTL
-BH CC, BH DTL, slice
-FH return, BH return (most of the time)
-FH and BH volley
-Movement
-Point construction
-passing shots

1st serve points won: Roddick 81%, Federer 77%
Service game held: Roddick 91%, Federer 88%

Federer is better than Roddick in every aspect of the game yet wins less points off of his 1st serve and holds less often than Roddick. This stat has been true every year that Roddick and Federer have been on tour. WHY? Because Roddick's 1st serve is better than Federer's.

:)

Fumus
08-24-2007, 02:50 PM
Honest question and not to be rude or judgmental. You say you like Roddick because he has heart and finds way to win with his less than stellar game. So do you like him for winning and not because of his great game? So if he doesn't win, will you stop liking him? Since you don't really admire his game but his winning ways, if he never wins you won't like him anymore because it's not like you can say ''But I still love his game despite the fact that he loses.''

I didn't say I liked him because he wins. I also didn't say I didn't like his game. I like bang bang tennis.

I love watching Andy play...lol...and I admire his spirit. If he loses and falls down the rankings I will still enjoy watching him play. ;)

Pushkin
08-24-2007, 03:58 PM
Roddick is a decent top 10 player who won is only slam by virtue of terrible calls against Nalbandian... He was "great" at the time when players didn't perfect the return game like they have today... Today he is a top 5 top 10 player who will no more challenge for Grand Slams and maybe even not for Masters. I predict next year at this time he will be #9 or something. Blake will be better than him... even if Blake is never gonna challenge for a Slam... Roddick is the Iva Majoli of men's tennis!

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 04:06 PM
Roddick is a decent top 10 player who won is only slam by virtue of terrible calls against Nalbandian... He was "great" at the time when players didn't perfect the return game like they have today... Today he is a top 5 top 10 player who will no more challenge for Grand Slams and maybe even not for Masters. I predict next year at this time he will be #9 or something. Blake will be better than him... even if Blake is never gonna challenge for a Slam... Roddick is the Iva Majoli of men's tennis!:spit:

No one could ever blame me for being a Roddick supporter, but how can a Grand-Slam winner with 3 other slam finals and 4 Masters titles to his name be the Iva Majoli of men's tennis...? :lol:

Pushkin
08-24-2007, 04:10 PM
Well maybe the Kuznetsova of men's tennis...

Pea
08-24-2007, 04:11 PM
I'm so tired of reading rodduck has the best serve, one of the ebst serves. No, that's shit. It's one of the biggest, the most powerful, but not even close to the best serve. He bombs them in. I know I've seen him use kick serves effectively once in a blue moon, but when it comes to game time he only relies on bombing them in.

So in conclusion, he's even limited in his serve.:o And he sucks.

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 04:12 PM
If anything he's the Clijsters of men's tennis...

Pushkin
08-24-2007, 04:17 PM
Roddick had the best serve when Roger was not Roger... Now his serve is good but not great and once the point start he is a top 40 player... Nowadays almost everybody can dictates the points against him from the baseline and when he comes to net he is terrible. Clijsters hit and miss 99 unforced errors Kim??????? No no he is the Kuznetsova of men's tennis ...

gjalex
08-24-2007, 04:27 PM
Roddick is a decent top 10 player who won is only slam by virtue of terrible calls against Nalbandian

:p

Burrow
08-24-2007, 05:13 PM
:spit:

No one could ever blame me for being a Roddick supporter, but how can a Grand-Slam winner with 3 other slam finals and 4 Masters titles to his name be the Iva Majoli of men's tennis...? :lol:

Same thing as you saying Safin is a waste of space, 2 time slam winner, 2 time finalist, 5 masters series titles, better than Roddicks achievements.

Fumus
08-24-2007, 06:13 PM
If anything he's the Clijsters of men's tennis...

Maybe he's the Serena. :o :o

Winston's Human
08-24-2007, 06:51 PM
If anything he's the Clijsters of men's tennis...

Whereas Majoli is more comparable to either Gaudio or Johansson.

hammett
08-24-2007, 08:11 PM
He'd have a Wimbledon trophy at least if it wasn't for the best player of all time. Hate his style, his on/off court behavior, etc all you want but don't be silly.

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 09:39 PM
Same thing as you saying Safin is a waste of space, 2 time slam winner, 2 time finalist, 5 masters series titles, better than Roddicks achievements.Nobody has ever talked about Roddick as the "greatest talent ever", that's the difference. At least here, around these forums, Roddick isn't overrated, Safin is.

And Roddick may have not won Slams for the last couple of seasons, but he hasn't been as useless as Safin.

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 09:40 PM
Maybe he's the Serena. :o :oHow many majors has Serena won?

Rafa = Fed Killa
08-24-2007, 09:46 PM
Haha like they can do any better. Federer bagelled and destroyed Nadal on clay and he has a 4-1 record against Djokovic. Hahahahahahah Calling Rafa and Nole Spartans LMAO.

Nadal vs Ego King 8 wins to 5 losses
Real Djokovic (he grew up after he won a masters) vs Ego King 1-0

Another pansy Fedtard owned by the light.

Now bend over for JesusFed like your friends.

Pushkin
08-24-2007, 10:24 PM
Safin is a 2 time slam winner a 2 time Davis Cup winner and the last guy to beat Roger in Grand Slams (outside the French). He is a true great in tennis history compare to the one slam wonder Andy...

groundstroke
08-24-2007, 11:17 PM
Nadal vs Ego King 8 wins to 5 losses
Real Djokovic (he grew up after he won a masters) vs Ego King 1-0

Another pansy Fedtard owned by the light.

Now bend over for JesusFed like your friends.
Fedtard? No, I don't think so. Nadal has only pretty much been able to beat Federer on clay; and Federer beat him on that, infact, he bagelled him.
I actually like the fact that Nadal beats Federer at RG, it gives Federer something to keep on training for.

Burrow
08-24-2007, 11:28 PM
Nobody has ever talked about Roddick as the "greatest talent ever", that's the difference. At least here, around these forums, Roddick isn't overrated, Safin is.

And Roddick may have not won Slams for the last couple of seasons, but he hasn't been as useless as Safin.

Has he had bad injuries throughout his career? Uh...no?

Rogiman
08-24-2007, 11:29 PM
Has he had bad injuries throughout his career? Uh...no?I guess he's trained properly.

Stensland
08-29-2007, 12:32 PM
finally a good article about the actual impact of connors:

http://usopen.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/bc-or-before-connors/#more-176

August 28, 2007, 10:18 pm

B.C., or Before Connors

By Kathleen McElroy

OK, Andy Roddick is about to defeat Justin Gimelstob, who was playing his last singles match at the United States Open Tuesday night. But all the television talk of Andy pre-Jimmy Connors — like “That backhand was tentative the way Andy used to hit it pre-Connors” — feels more like glorification of a man whose relationship with Roddick has brought more TV time than meaningful results. The broadcasts are beginning to sound like “The Da Vinci Code” the movie — “In the year of Jimmy Connors” Ian McKellen intones in his baritone …

It is absolutely true that Roddick could upset No. 1 Roger Federer in the quarterfinals, that he could win his second Open and all power to him. But to him, not Connors: Roddick hasn’t won anything significant since hooking up with Connors. In the Open semifinals last year, he beat the man who beat Nadal. Short of all those cutwaway shots of Jimmy, Andy has gotten hype, but how much real coaching, from Connors? Andy reached the Open final after hiring Connors as an occasional coach, but he had reached three Grand Slam finals (winning one) before Connors even entered the picture. Since then, one final. Like the two others, he lost it against Federer.

His best results came with Brad Gilbert as his coach, and who has the better coaching resume? If I’m picking my all-Fantasy baseball team, Ted Williams is there as a hitter, not a manager. Plus, if Roddick wanted to challenge Federer and Nadal, why not drop Connors and hire Tony Roche, Ivan Lendl and Roger’s old coach? Would that be, perhaps, a bad P.R. move?

“That was a a Jimbo-like passing shot!” John McEnroe exclaimed from the commentator’s booth during the USA network broadcast. Are you serious! Any dipping, running two-handed backhand could look like Jimmy’s because that’s the first one that was televised. And Tarik Benhabiles, a small player with a big brain, got Roddick to the big game in the first place, thank you.

Jimmy Connors may be a boon to Roddick. But shouldn’t Connors shoulder the blame when Roddick can’t last in Paris long enough to order a three-course meal? And how positive was Connors’s guidance when Roddick folded like freshly laundered sheets to Richard Gasquet at Wimbledon after winning the first two sets?

No disrespect to Roddick or Connors, whose energy made the United States Open the high-profile event that it remains today, but let’s not label Connors the Great Coaching Hope until Andy is a champion in tournaments outside of the American summer circuit. When that happens, props to the both of them. Until then, does Andy have girlfriend or a racket stringer we could see every other point instead? I love a little Jimmy, but on ESPN Classic and during rain delays.

Stensland
09-06-2007, 04:14 AM
andy's stopping to run again. i can't believe how unfit this guy is. that one shot a minute ago from roger's backhand cross onto andy's forehand and he just stopped going at it and stayed in the middle of the court, looking down...so weird.

NinaNina19
09-06-2007, 04:26 AM
What about Ferrero? He was number one like once. Where is he now? Roddick has managed to consistently stay well inside the top top ten for several years now. He hasn't one another slam since '03 but I mean he has gotten to 3 finals losing to Federer in each one.

Andre♥
09-06-2007, 04:36 AM
What about Ferrero? He was number one like once. Where is he now? Roddick has managed to consistently stay well inside the top top ten for several years now. He hasn't one another slam since '03 but I mean he has gotten to 3 finals losing to Federer in each one.

Ferrero >>> Roddick

Ferrero has won the slowest Grand Slam and he has made the final of the fastest (or 2nd faster - Wimbledon looks as fast as a turtle since 2002) Grand Slam. He has also won Masters Series on clay and in indoors. This shows how is much talented than Roddick.

NinaNina19
09-06-2007, 04:42 AM
How is he much more talented than Roddick? Roddick creamed him in the US Open 03 final and last time they played. What has Ferrero done since? Pretty much nothing. He's not even in the top 20 while Roddick has stayed consistently inside the top ten.

rmb6687
09-06-2007, 05:52 AM
whoa, that NYT article was rather scathing, but justified. I wish Andy/Jimmy would say something about how they train and such. I'd like to blame Andy's 'decline' on Federer, but since he's not just getting defeated by Roger anymore and there are all these new players coming up, it seem the problem lies within their relationship and lack of real improvement.

Andy played really well tonight but only because Andy stuck to what he knows and is good at and didn't make too many errors. His serve was ridiculously fast, and his FH looked much better than usual, however he still lost. Why? Not because Federer is better than he is (let's not get into that) but because there are crucial elements of the game that Andy should be focusing on that are still lacking. There's no point in enumerating them. And while I would like him to work on those things, I'm afraid his good shots will go downhill and that might be worse. Yes, Andy is still in the top 10 and has been for pretty much his entire career, but he was top three...and then he was fouth...and now he's fifth. I think it's only going to get harder.

and I totally forgot about Tarik. haha good times.

Allure
09-06-2007, 09:22 PM
I wish he would add more variety to his game and not be so one dimensional. It would be nice to have an all court American player.

Stensland
09-06-2007, 09:23 PM
I wish he would add more variety to his game and not be so one dimensional.

i bet he's trying hard to do that but what we see right now is the best andy can get. can't blame him for not having enough talent to trouble fed in any way.

Allure
09-07-2007, 12:03 AM
i bet he's trying hard to do that but what we see right now is the best andy can get. can't blame him for not having enough talent to trouble fed in any way.

True. Oh, well.

Stensland
09-07-2007, 12:13 AM
True. Oh, well.

i wouldn't even feel that bad if i was roddick. there are like 2, maximum 3 people in the whole entire world who can trouble federer. he's not one of them, so what? he got a positive record against almost the whole top 10, so those defeats against some genius wouldn't bother me that much.

scoobs
09-07-2007, 12:25 AM
Andy can and should hold his head high.

He goes out and competes the best way he knows how. His strengths just don't trouble Federer enough. There's nothing he can do about that, and no shame in it. He is getting the most he can out his game. If it's not enough then it's not his fault - you can't ask for more than a person is capable of.

Stensland
09-07-2007, 12:33 AM
Andy can and should hold his head high.

He goes out and competes the best way he knows how. His strengths just don't trouble Federer enough. There's nothing he can do about that, and no shame in it. He is getting the most he can out his game. If it's not enough then it's not his fault - you can't ask for more than a person is capable of.

i agree with you on most points (as i said in postings before), but what about his fitness? he does fight his ass off, true, but remember the second and third set yesterday? there were shots from roger that wouldn't even harm someone like nalbandian yet roddick wasn't able to/didn't want to get them. he just stopped in the middle of the court, head down, seeming humiliated by a pretty simple cross forehand or backhand. now, those shots are normally stuff nadal takes to advance to the net, smashing a forehand onto federer's side of the court right before that approach. but those shots by federer apparently are enough to not only attack andy, but to even outplay him!

and seriously, he is the absolute only one who can't run down those strokes. it always strikes me when federer is playing him, it doesn't happen to any other opponents.

Allure
09-07-2007, 12:47 AM
I know what you mean. Not only with Federer but other opponents as well. When players play Roddick, they hit passing shots and Andy just stands there and shake his head instead of trying to get to the ball. Happened in the Gasquet match. I think it has to do with Andy is just not a good mover. Still sometimes it can be downright humiliating.

Jem
09-07-2007, 12:48 AM
Roddick played superbly last night. He would have beaten anyone else in the world last night, except Federer. The Fed hit some ridiculously insane shots in those tiebreakers. I think roddick was mentally broken to have played so well for two sets and have nothing to show for it.