Single Most Important Reason Why Roddick Lost to Nalbandian [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Single Most Important Reason Why Roddick Lost to Nalbandian

lordmanji
11-17-2006, 02:13 AM
After nearly beating Roger in straights, Roddick takes a step back and loses to Nalbandian in two. For those who watched the match, what's the most single important reason Roddick lost?

RickDaStick
11-17-2006, 02:13 AM
Nalbandian is a better tennis player.

NATAS81
11-17-2006, 02:15 AM
Roddick became too frustrated with himself when he started realizing Nalbandian got a handle on his serves. That is the single most important reason why Roddick got off to such a bad start to open this year. The pace didn't bother Nalby at all. You must hit the corners and Andy wasn't doing that early.

Also, I think Andy had a letdown after the Federer match. Everyone on tour wants to beat Roger badly and when you have match points and lose it isn't easy to come back the next match and play your best.

Merton
11-17-2006, 02:18 AM
Andy can lose to Nalbandian on any given day but in this case he came out passive and almost complacent, as if his tough loss to Roger left him mentally drained.

Action Jackson
11-17-2006, 02:29 AM
Not good enough.

R.Federer
11-17-2006, 02:35 AM
Not good enough.

:lol:
I guess that's true for whoever loses to whoever in any match. Today in this match David was certainly too good for Andy.
David is a great returner, the kind of player that Andy matches up particularly poorly with.

garylanders
11-17-2006, 02:36 AM
I´d say he used the wrong strategy. In this match Roddick relied on beeing the better tennis player, outrallying Nalbandian from the baseline.
Coming to the net with semi-weak approach shots isnt the best thing to do against him either.
Many players far far less talented than Roddick has beaten Nalbandian with their ugly games.

/GL

Action Jackson
11-17-2006, 02:37 AM
:lol:
I guess that's true for whoever loses to whoever in any match. Today in this match David was certainly too good for Andy.
David is a great returner, the kind of player that Andy matches up particularly poorly with.

Well he tried the one tactic suits all and Nalle loves a target and being a duck, and Nalbandian was the hunter in the gallery and scored many hits.:)

hitchhiker
11-17-2006, 03:01 AM
it was no longer a exhibition like it was against federer

partygirl
11-17-2006, 03:01 AM
David is a great returner, the kind of player that Andy matches up particularly poorly with.
are they not 3-2 now? :shrug:

Johnny Groove
11-17-2006, 03:03 AM
And in a surprising twist of events, "Roddick Sucks" is the 2nd most picked reason :rolleyes:

selyoink
11-17-2006, 03:14 AM
He lost because Nalbandian is better at everyting except serving. His groundstrokes are far superior to Roddick's and he returns serve way better than Roddick.

LCeh
11-17-2006, 03:19 AM
IMO, the single most important reason why Roddick lost to Nalbandian was because he didn't walk into the match with the correct tactical mindset. Going into the net is not going to work very well against David. It works for him against Federer because Federer seems to have the goods against Roddick when they are both at the baseline, so in a way, you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Even though Roger has great passing shots, he is even better on his groundstrokes when he is given time, so Andy made the right choice of going in, and it almost paid off for him.

But against Nalbandian, who loves a target, it wasn't that wise. Obviously he wasn't winning much of the baseline battle either, but it would probably have been better than going into the net blindly.

ChinoRios4Ever
11-17-2006, 03:33 AM
nalbi's game
bh return
bh crosscourt
poor volley andy
nalbi BIG "HUEVOS"

MisterQ
11-17-2006, 03:39 AM
From the clips I've seen, it looks like Roddick made a strategic mistake, strongly underestimating great Nalbandian's ability to pass him. Granted, I've only seen selected points.

Hokit
11-17-2006, 04:12 AM
Nalbandian is a better tennis player.

Result wise?

Rommella
11-17-2006, 04:25 AM
Mental fatigue that carried over from his loss to Federer. Andy was just going through the motions really. Much as he wanted to put up a fight, the flesh was willing but the spirit was weak.

Fergie
11-17-2006, 04:38 AM
Wrong strategy and Nalbandian's game ;)

craighickman
11-17-2006, 04:41 AM
Mental fatigue that carried over from his loss to Federer. Andy was just going through the motions really. Much as he wanted to put up a fight, the flesh was willing but the spirit was weak.


Well stated.

Considering that David had only defeated Roddick once in four tries prior to this meeting, the argument that it's a terrible match up for Roddick seems baseless.

Magical Trevor
11-17-2006, 04:47 AM
He had the wrong idea I suppose. Nalbandian has killer returns and passing shots. I mean against Federer serve-volleying isn't so bad, because Roger tends to just get the ball back in off the return figuring that he shouldn't lose any baseline rallies. But Nalbandian plays pretty aggresive off the returns, and really burned Andy last night

PamV
11-17-2006, 04:54 AM
Nalbandian is just a great returner for one thing. He broke Roger 3 times in their first set! The paradox is that in the match with Roddick, Nalbandian didn't run out of gas but in the match with Federer he did eventually. When Roddick played Federer he looked much more agressive in every way. He was more pumped up for a fight. He wasn't that way with Nalbandian.

One telling fact might be that Roddick did manage to stay on serve in the 2nd set but then failed in the tie break. Tie breaks were a weak spot for Roddick in this TMC. So perhaps nerves were part of Roddick's down fall?

Nalbandian was calm and I think after everything that happened with his family recently, the tennis probably didn't seem like the biggest thing in the world.

PamV
11-17-2006, 04:58 AM
Mental fatigue that carried over from his loss to Federer. Andy was just going through the motions really. Much as he wanted to put up a fight, the flesh was willing but the spirit was weak.

Why would Andy be so mentally fatigued though? Nalbandian could have been just as mentally fatigued. Could it be that he and Connors spent so much time studying Roger's game and how to counteract it but they spent zero time on studying Nalbandian?

R.Federer
11-17-2006, 05:03 AM
are they not 3-2 now? :shrug:

I'm sorry, I don't know the H2H. But it's irrelevant to the fact that David is a great returner, and that that is a particularly bad match up for Andy because as you know Andy's greatest strength and free points go-to is his serve.
When that doesn't work, something else has to be on, either his forehand or his bh dtl. But that is not as reliable as his serve --I don't think anyone disputes that, do you?-- so if you're trying to imply that a 3-2 h2h must mean that David, despite being a great returner, is not a bad matchup for Andy, I would say it is a non sequitur.

spencercarlos
11-17-2006, 05:10 AM
Wrong strategy and Nalbandian's game ;)
I agree.
Also he seemed deflated somehow, probably side effects from his heartbreaking loss to Roger.
And poor strategy wise, he kept playing to Nalbandian´s backhand, and got punished for that.
Even when he was 6-5 15-30, just two points from the set, and went there by playing to Nalby´s forehand more, started to hit again to the backhand :lol:

spencercarlos
11-17-2006, 05:14 AM
He had the wrong idea I suppose. Nalbandian has killer returns and passing shots. I mean against Federer serve-volleying isn't so bad, because Roger tends to just get the ball back in off the return figuring that he shouldn't lose any baseline rallies. But Nalbandian plays pretty aggresive off the returns, and really burned Andy last night
You are putting Nalbandian as the star of the returns here, he is a great returner, but Andy simply did not showed even 60% of the player he was against Federer and Nalbandian jumped all over.
Andy burned himself with his poor strategy and silly errors at key points.
Still Nalbandia deserved the win. It should have been a 6-2 6-4 if he would not have choked in that game.

DrJules
11-17-2006, 07:44 AM
I'm sorry, I don't know the H2H. But it's irrelevant to the fact that David is a great returner, and that that is a particularly bad match up for Andy because as you know Andy's greatest strength and free points go-to is his serve.
When that doesn't work, something else has to be on, either his forehand or his bh dtl. But that is not as reliable as his serve --I don't think anyone disputes that, do you?-- so if you're trying to imply that a 3-2 h2h must mean that David, despite being a great returner, is not a bad matchup for Andy, I would say it is a non sequitur.

And the 3-2 does not reveal that Nalbandian has won the last 2 matches in straight sets and had a match point to win the match before those 2 in straight sets.

The HAAS Admirer
11-17-2006, 08:16 AM
Well stated.

Considering that David had only defeated Roddick once in four tries prior to this meeting, the argument that it's a terrible match up for Roddick seems baseless.

umgh there last match was more than three years ago, on 10-25-2003, and David won that 7-5 7-5, once again in straights.
Their match before that was the 2003 Semi at the US Open in which David won the first two sets and lost the third 7-6, it was the classic choke from David. 2003 was such a long time ago, they were both far different players and it doesn't mean anything anymore.

MilMilCho
11-17-2006, 08:28 AM
It's wrong choice of strategy.
Also, Roddick made a wrong choice to keep hitting to Nalbandian's backhand,
Nalbandian got a huge backhand, bigger than his forehand.
So everytime Nalbandian could hit backhand passing shots easily.
Roddick should have intead hit the ball to his forehand.

TennisOz
11-17-2006, 09:51 AM
Not good enough on that particular day. As someone else said, the single best way to beat Roddick is to neutralise his serve. If he isn't serving wide or down the middle and you have a good eye and return well (eg Federer, Nalby, Lubo) then you are a long way towards beating him. Once you get into rallies with Roddick he probably has the weakest backhand of any of the top players so this can be exploited and if his forehand is off there isn't much left (in relative terms to the other top players). Roddick could easily come out on another day and blow Nalbandian away with his serve. The loss to Federer when 3 MP's up obviously didn't help too. All credit to Nalbandian though, he too had a loss against Federer and Ljubicic when close to victory, and the death of his godson to deal with so well done!

TennisOz:)

Not good enough.

craighickman
11-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Why would Andy be so mentally fatigued though?

***Clears Throat***

How about the huge emotional letdown and disappointed of having 3 match points against your nemesis and not being able to close out the match. I'm just a fan and it took me three days to get over it. Roddick said all the right things after both his losses, but I can't imagine he's still not thinking about his missed opportunities in that second-set tiebreak against Federer (not to mention the three match points he had against Ljubo to close out that match in straight sets).

Nalbandian had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and as someone has already stated, a tragedy can put a tennis match in perspective and release all the pressure. We'll never know, but I'd bet that if he wasn't dealing with a death in the family, he wouldn't have been so relaxed and precise at the beginning of the match.

R.Federer
11-17-2006, 02:53 PM
***Clears Throat***

How about the huge emotional letdown and disappointed of having 3 match points against your nemesis and not being able to close out the match. I'm just a fan and it took me three days to get over it. Roddick said all the right things after both his losses, but I can't imagine he's still not thinking about his missed opportunities in that second-set tiebreak against Federer (not to mention the three match points he had against Ljubo to close out that match in straight sets).

Nalbandian had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and as someone has already stated, a tragedy can put a tennis match in perspective and release all the pressure. We'll never know, but I'd bet that if he wasn't dealing with a death in the family, he wouldn't have been so relaxed and precise at the beginning of the match.


Emotional letdown for Andy? Spare a thought for David who took the real emotional beating before the match and is more likely to have had his mind elsewhere. If he loses the match, people would say it was because of the emotional turmoil. He wins the match, people point to the emotional strength from the tragedy.

Bottomline-- almost everyone who watched will admit David played a better game than Andy and Andy played the S/V right into David's great return/passing hands. (ps. It hasn't been three days since that match :yeah: ).

GlennMirnyi
11-17-2006, 03:21 PM
Roddick is a known choker. There you go.

Clara Bow
11-17-2006, 03:25 PM
Emotional letdown for Andy? Spare a thought for David who took the real emotional beating before the match and is more likely to have had his mind elsewhere. If he loses the match, people would say it was because of the emotional turmoil. He wins the match, people point to the emotional strength from the tragedy.

Bottomline-- almost everyone who watched will admit David played a better game than Andy and Andy played the S/V right into David's great return/passing hands. (ps. It hasn't been three days since that match :yeah: ).


Very well said. :) Imo, Nalby played the better match, and Andy did not have the proper game plan with how to beat David. Yeah, there might have been some let down after losing to Federer, but David surely was also distracted. And if Andy wants to do well at TMC- he has to expect that there will be some tough losses when you are playing folks in the top 8 and you will need to dust yourself off after such a los and also that you will need to adjust your game accordingly for the different players.

megadeth
11-17-2006, 03:27 PM
he was left mentally scarred from being so close in beating fed. so it kinda counters what he says everytime he loses that he'll take some positives from it for the next match...

yea right... :rolleyes:

tangerine_dream
11-17-2006, 03:34 PM
***Clears Throat***

How about the huge emotional letdown and disappointed of having 3 match points against your nemesis and not being able to close out the match.
No use trying to argue reason with Fedtards, Craig. It's a losing battle.

RogiFan88
11-17-2006, 03:40 PM
You forgot to add another choice:

- they don't sell Cheetos in Shanghai

GlennMirnyi
11-17-2006, 03:41 PM
I went for "Roddick sucks" because there's no "Roddick choked" option.

EasternWind
11-17-2006, 08:18 PM
Nalbandian overall is just a much better player...that is if his head didn't wander off somewhere.

Joyce_23
11-17-2006, 10:57 PM
***Clears Throat***

How about the huge emotional letdown and disappointed of having 3 match points against your nemesis and not being able to close out the match.

Yeah, Andy was the one having huge emotional problems....:rolleyes: Not David of course, losing a child is never as tough as losing from Federer after having three match points!!!! How will he ever recover? You think there are support groups for his problem?
Anyway, David was just the better player that day. Does't mean he's gonna beat Andy every time, he just did the last time they played. End of story.

El Legenda
11-17-2006, 11:00 PM
I went with the first one. :wavey:

scarecrows
11-17-2006, 11:20 PM
I went with the first one. :wavey:

what this guy said :wavey:

partygirl
11-17-2006, 11:29 PM
whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

Voo de Mar
11-17-2006, 11:44 PM
Roddick lost tie-break's confidence - this is in my opinion main reason. He should win all the tie-breaks against Ljubo, FedEx and fat Dave, and all lost... :smash: Anyway he is still good tie-break player with over 60 % of winning TBs.

Jlee
11-18-2006, 12:15 AM
It was a letdown from the Federer match, it was bound to happen. Nalby played well too. I also think the strategy was somewhat lacking. A combination of things really...

NyGeL
11-18-2006, 12:16 AM
becouse Roddick is only serve, and his serve didn't worked.

Lucas Arg
11-18-2006, 11:39 AM
Nalbandian plays great tennis;)