Would Roddick be a top player if he weren't American? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Would Roddick be a top player if he weren't American?

sawan66278
03-16-2007, 11:07 PM
Looking at Andy's level of talent in comparison to other players on the tour, I really believe that Andy would only be a top 20 player if he played anywhere else in the world. Let me explain:

Most pros will tell you that the talent level on the tour is pretty close...except for players like Roger. Confidence is what separates players. Andy, from the time he was young and up and coming, has been lauded as the great American hope. And he has enjoyed the fruits of this via endorsements and the like. Ergo, when one is told they are great, they often invariably believe they are.

Secondly, Andy has the advantage of having the advice of legends of the game like Johnny Mac, Andre, and James Scott Connors.

Third, every year, it seems that Andy, pardon the pun, gets his mojo via the U.S. hard court season. Think about it: the U.S. Open is the last slam of the year, and the entire hard court season (other than a few weeks in January and Feb.) is dominated by tourneys in the U.S. American players invariably almost ALWAYS have the crowd behind them. Foreign players are at a huge homecourt disadvantage. Take last night: Andy wins the first set on a beautiful passing shot, and the crowd reacted as if they were the fans of an NBA franchise that had won a game on a last second shot. Roger Federer being the exception (because he is the Michael Jordan of the men's tour with fans everywhere), most players, including Nadal are forced to not only deal with their opponent, but extra support from the home crowd. Think about it: four Masters series tourneys (all on the same surface) are in the U.S. A huge advantage. Look at Cincinnati last year: Andy ran around the court giving the fans high fives after he won.

I'm not trying to be sour grapes, but it makes you wonder. (Okay, when I hear PMac almost screeching in delight when Andy hits a drop shot, it annoys me to no end). Dmitri T. said that if he had grown up in the U.S., he would have been Andy Roddick. I disagree: he most likely could have been better.

Comments?

tripb19
03-16-2007, 11:11 PM
:retard: He has the fastest serve of all time, and used to have the biggest forehand. His game suits grass and US hardcourts, so he was always going to be a top 10 player with alot of points coming from July on.

Johnny Groove
03-16-2007, 11:13 PM
I think you're talking out of your arse :wavey:

Do you know how many American kids get hyped up the ass and they cant do shit? even with endorsements and the like?

Voo de Mar
03-16-2007, 11:15 PM
The American players have the easiest way to reach high level because in US is the most events and what is very important - on every surfaces. Young players have been many occasions to play in big events in qualifications or in the main draw with "wild cards". But on the other hand many American players have been similar conditions to Andy and they aren't so good as he is.

Sunset of Age
03-16-2007, 11:24 PM
Do you know how many American kids get hyped up the ass and they cant do shit? even with endorsements and the like?

I'd like to go even further and state that that may well be a part of the problem! Overhyping never does anyone any good...

Balerion
03-16-2007, 11:25 PM
Players with from countries with larger federations do have advantages. I don't actually think Wild Cards help that much - I'd rather see a player grind through qualifying because it makes him have to prove his worth and gives him extra match experience. If a player is really that talented he'll make it through qualies anyway.

The real advantage is a financial one. A player from sub-Saharan Africa for example, has very little opportunity to play ITF events unless he travels to Europe, which is expensive. That's a melodramatic example, but the point is that it's not possible for a tennis career to be financially self-sufficient on the ITF Tour. If you don't have your federation behind you, you have to depend on private funds or hope for some sort of other sponsorship. Even players from larger federations often play non-ITF tournaments that offer more cash to fund their career - and that wastes time that they could be spending working up the ladder.

That said, none of this affects someone like Roddick, who has enough talent that some big athletic label would have taken care of him no matter where he was from. If he wasn't American, he'd probably be slightly more popular (unless he was Croatian, I guess...;) ), although he has proactively done a lot to shoot himself in the foot in that department.

Kitty de Sade
03-16-2007, 11:28 PM
I'd like to go even further and state that that may well be a part of the problem! Overhyping never does anyone any good...

Exactly. The over-hyping machine hasn't exactly done someone like Donald Young any favors.

sodman12
03-16-2007, 11:30 PM
What are you talking about?

Roddick wasn't really hyped that much. Not until he found his serve by mistake and then grew a foot did he every really start winning anything and that was by 17-18. When he was 14-15 he was too small and his serve was too crappy to be considered to be one of the best.

sawan66278
03-17-2007, 12:28 AM
Good points about the hype involved...and his serve...I'm not saying that he is not talented, but I really believe that because he is from the U.S., his ranking is as high as it is...Take someone like Tursonov: if he got to play in front of a home crowd for a huge part of the tennis season, I can assure you...he would have a HUGE advantage. Credit to Roddick for taking advantage of this...um...advantage...but when the crowd is for you, it can help you elevate your game at the most crucial moments.

Unless you are Ivan Lendl...then you kick butt and take names regardless of who supports you...

Sean.J.S.
03-17-2007, 12:47 AM
What a stupid thread. :rolleyes:

nkhera1
03-17-2007, 01:04 AM
Maybe if Roddick lived in another country, he would have started playing tennis at a younger age and therefore have become a much better player. If I'm not mistaken Roddick started at a very late age especially in terms of tennis players. Maybe if Roddick lived in a different country, he would have learned to become a better clay court or grass court player. Or maybe it just doesn't matter that much.

my0118
03-17-2007, 01:22 AM
If he still sucks like he's only one of top100 players when it comes to clay (I think duck should prove himself he's a top 3 by playing like he's a top 20 in the world at least on clay), then we have some talk about that. It's a bit too early to discuss.

Sofyaxo
03-17-2007, 01:36 AM
Well duh of course being American makes everyone better.

Really he went in an won all those matches over the years because people were like ohhhh he's American we need to get him in the top ten so I should just lose.

That's how Pete and Andre did it too. Booo scary Americans.

jeahhh!
03-17-2007, 01:45 AM
Well duh of course being American makes everyone better.

Really he went in an won all those matches over the year because people were like ohhhh he's American we need to get him in the top ten so I should just lose.

Of course. If it happened any other way it would just be illogical.;)

zicofirol
03-17-2007, 01:50 AM
this is a really really stupid thread... who cares where he would be from, its not like he is entering with WC everywhere or gets an extra dvantage from being America, he might of taken a bit longer to break into tour but he still has the serve and a good forehand, that dominates on the court regardless of nationality...

Deboogle!.
03-17-2007, 01:57 AM
If he still sucks like he's only one of top100 players when it comes to clay (I think duck should prove himself he's a top 3 by playing like he's a top 20 in the world at least on clay), then we have some talk about that. It's a bit too early to discuss.Yeah, and if he hadn't been American, he would probably have crown up playing more on clay and he'd probably be better on it. :yawn:

sawan66278
03-17-2007, 04:45 AM
Perhaps I should have said a continuing top five player. Theoretically, tennis (except for Davis Cup) is a "neutral" sport. What this means is that home court advantage does not mean much. However, because so many of the major tourneys throughout the year are played in the U.S., players from the U.S. have tremendous support that others do not.

Many, many fans go to tennis tourneys having never gone before. Invariably, they pull for (which is natural) players from their home countries. Having four masters series tourneys alone here in the U.S. allows players from the U.S. to have a distinct advantage when they are playing here. When a player is in a slump, often all it takes is a couple of wins to get to gain/regain their confidence. If they can (like Andy did in Cin. last year) win a few matches, they may be able to carry this to the rest of the year.

Look at the U.S. Open. U.S. players get the best times and the best scheduling of matches. Andy won the Open a few years ago (his only slam), and I still remember the unfair scheduling of matches which helped him win. Juan Carlos' matches were scheduled in such a manner that Andy (with more days rest in between) was well rested for the finals...JCF was not.

I know it sounds like I am a "hater", but I'm simply reiterating what Dmitri T. said a few years ago...

darrinbaker00
03-17-2007, 05:03 AM
Would Roger Federer be #1 if he weren't Swiss? Would Ivo Karlovic have such a big serve if he wasn't 6'10"? What if Toni Nadal kept the racquet in Rafael's right hand? I like this game. ;)

Veronique
03-17-2007, 05:19 AM
Why does Ljubo fail to win big tournaments outside of the US?

my0118
03-17-2007, 05:20 AM
If he weren't American, of course he'd still be a top player. :) Just not in tennis. :D He'd be a great footballer - they all have their hands over their crotches all the time anyway. :devil:

And then we'd see the movie Bend It Like Roddick. :hearts:

ooooh, he's not hot enough to be a footballer. He should feel lucky himeself to choose playing tennis :devil: well at least he could be a mediocre one.
Anyway, come on!! he's destined to be an american. he's reincarnated from a domesticated duck in Taxas. no other countries accepted.

brent-o
03-17-2007, 06:41 AM
Looking at Andy's level of talent in comparison to other players on the tour, I really believe that Andy would only be a top 20 player if he played anywhere else in the world. Let me explain:

Most pros will tell you that the talent level on the tour is pretty close...except for players like Roger. Confidence is what separates players. Andy, from the time he was young and up and coming, has been lauded as the great American hope. And he has enjoyed the fruits of this via endorsements and the like. Ergo, when one is told they are great, they often invariably believe they are.

Secondly, Andy has the advantage of having the advice of legends of the game like Johnny Mac, Andre, and James Scott Connors.

Third, every year, it seems that Andy, pardon the pun, gets his mojo via the U.S. hard court season. Think about it: the U.S. Open is the last slam of the year, and the entire hard court season (other than a few weeks in January and Feb.) is dominated by tourneys in the U.S. American players invariably almost ALWAYS have the crowd behind them. Foreign players are at a huge homecourt disadvantage. Take last night: Andy wins the first set on a beautiful passing shot, and the crowd reacted as if they were the fans of an NBA franchise that had won a game on a last second shot. Roger Federer being the exception (because he is the Michael Jordan of the men's tour with fans everywhere), most players, including Nadal are forced to not only deal with their opponent, but extra support from the home crowd. Think about it: four Masters series tourneys (all on the same surface) are in the U.S. A huge advantage. Look at Cincinnati last year: Andy ran around the court giving the fans high fives after he won.

I'm not trying to be sour grapes, but it makes you wonder. (Okay, when I hear PMac almost screeching in delight when Andy hits a drop shot, it annoys me to no end). Dmitri T. said that if he had grown up in the U.S., he would have been Andy Roddick. I disagree: he most likely could have been better.

Comments?

Hmm, never thought about it before. What you're saying makes sense.

FanofFederer
03-17-2007, 07:34 AM
He would arguably not have won the US Open if he were not American; because surely then the advantageous scheduling and the crucial line call in his favour in the Nalbandian match would never have occurred and he would have likely lost

Roddick like many American players has had many things handed to him on a platter but kudos to him for taking advantage of these opportunities. However I will never have same respect for him and other players like millionaire family Nadal who have had great fortune and achieved highly versus people who have fought through very tough circumstances to also achieve highly (e.g. Ljubicic)

soraya
03-17-2007, 07:35 AM
If he weren't American, of course he'd still be a top player. :) Just not in tennis. :D He'd be a great footballer - they all have their hands over their crotches all the time anyway. :devil:

And then we'd see the movie Bend It Like Roddick. :hearts:

some good laughter after a crappy week. thanks J'torian.

tennis2tennis
03-17-2007, 07:49 AM
I think its an interesting theory but there's always another side to the coin. If we agree with the idea that American players are more likely to get the endorsement deals and fans support they will also get more pressure and expectation...someone mentioned Donald Young.... how would you feel if your called the future of American tennis?




Your defeats are scrutinised, your game is dissected and your sporting prowess constantly questioned. Surely the existence of this thread proves my point?

if we go down that avenue we can flip the script and ask...

is being American hindering Roddicks progress?

jazar
03-17-2007, 07:54 AM
of course he would still be top if he wasnt american

binkygirl
03-17-2007, 08:27 AM
I think you're talking out of your arse :wavey:

Do you know how many American kids get hyped up the ass and they cant do shit? even with endorsements and the like?

Dead on. Look at the money that was wasted on Scott Humphries, Philip King, and the like and they never turned in the results to justify it. Roddick is a product of his very wealthy family's grooming, especially after his older brother flamed out, you know they started grooming Andy hardcore for success. I even believe the growth hormone rumors, because the rest of Andy's family is so short.

blosson
03-17-2007, 08:54 AM
Would I be earning more money if I was American? Would I be driving a bigger car if I was American? Would I be living in America if I was American? Would I be married to Tom Cruise if I was American...oh

thrust
03-17-2007, 10:51 AM
If being an American pro tennis player is such an advantage, how come we only have two players in the top 20?

Loremaster
03-17-2007, 11:26 AM
What a stupid thread you're closing gap to IvanLjubicic in making stupid threads :haha: :haha:

by your logic Andre and Pete were great GS champions and legends because they were Americans :haha:

FluffyYellowBall
03-17-2007, 11:45 AM
Maybe not. If he grew up in a place where they dont care about tennis he might have not been as good as he is. Its not about talent or how big his serve is. For example, the ETF here does fund any top players as welll as they should. One of the best and most talented players here whs name i wont mention is playing tennis to support his family and hopefully become a top player but they just dont care. His itf ranking is about 80 and he cant even afford to travel a lot.
So if u can imagine the situation with roddick not travelling as much as he should, where would he be right now? Maybe a top player but i doubt #1...

Black Adam
03-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Once again MTF thriving on big IFs :rolleyes:

sawan66278
03-17-2007, 03:13 PM
Obviously, there have been players (U.S.) who have fizzled out and suffered from the hype surrounding them. As I've said before: kudos to Andy for taking advantage of his situation. But the key words are "taking advantage"...not asking that things be given to him.

However, NO ONE can refute the point that given the tourney scheduling on the ATP tour, a U.S. player who HAS talent and heart has a great opportunity because in at least four major tourneys a year, he will be the crowd favorite.

I just wonder: what type of advantage would Argentinian, Chilean, Spanish, or Russian players have if they got to play four major tourneys a year in their home countries? Hmm...

angiel
03-17-2007, 06:28 PM
Looking at Andy's level of talent in comparison to other players on the tour, I really believe that Andy would only be a top 20 player if he played anywhere else in the world. Let me explain:

Most pros will tell you that the talent level on the tour is pretty close...except for players like Roger. Confidence is what separates players. Andy, from the time he was young and up and coming, has been lauded as the great American hope. And he has enjoyed the fruits of this via endorsements and the like. Ergo, when one is told they are great, they often invariably believe they are.

Secondly, Andy has the advantage of having the advice of legends of the game like Johnny Mac, Andre, and James Scott Connors.

Third, every year, it seems that Andy, pardon the pun, gets his mojo via the U.S. hard court season. Think about it: the U.S. Open is the last slam of the year, and the entire hard court season (other than a few weeks in January and Feb.) is dominated by tourneys in the U.S. American players invariably almost ALWAYS have the crowd behind them. Foreign players are at a huge homecourt disadvantage. Take last night: Andy wins the first set on a beautiful passing shot, and the crowd reacted as if they were the fans of an NBA franchise that had won a game on a last second shot. Roger Federer being the exception (because he is the Michael Jordan of the men's tour with fans everywhere), most players, including Nadal are forced to not only deal with their opponent, but extra support from the home crowd. Think about it: four Masters series tourneys (all on the same surface) are in the U.S. A huge advantage. Look at Cincinnati last year: Andy ran around the court giving the fans high fives after he won.

I'm not trying to be sour grapes, but it makes you wonder. (Okay, when I hear PMac almost screeching in delight when Andy hits a drop shot, it annoys me to no end). Dmitri T. said that if he had grown up in the U.S., he would have been Andy Roddick. I disagree: he most likely could have been better.

Comments?


Which country are you from my friend?? :confused: :confused: :(

MaryWalsh
03-17-2007, 06:36 PM
Would the Pope be a . . . hmm, whatever . . . if he weren't Catholic? :scratch:

Joyce_23
03-17-2007, 06:47 PM
What kind of crap argument is that? You either have talent of you don't have it...end of story. Roddick got to where he is now because he can play tennis. According to your 'logic' Baggy could have never played like he's doing now since he's from a tiny island where they never have a big tournament to root for him. Poor Marcos...I really wonder what happened to make him get his big break in the end. Oh wait, maybe it was talent! :rolleyes:
Great thread by the way...:yeah: