Was Roddick Slam Just a Fluke? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Roddick Slam Just a Fluke?

nolop
05-09-2007, 07:19 PM
:confused:

RickDaStick
05-09-2007, 07:20 PM
Of course it was.

BigAlbinoDonky
05-09-2007, 07:21 PM
Not at all, he'd have several more if it weren't for some guy named Federer.

scarecrows
05-09-2007, 07:21 PM
there have been already enought retarded threads today, no need for more but thanks anyway

Andre♥
05-09-2007, 07:22 PM
His USO was a fluke, because Fat Dave was robbed big time in the semis...

ReturnWinner
05-09-2007, 07:29 PM
i do not know if fluke but he should have get beaten by Nalbandian

mashamaniac
05-09-2007, 07:31 PM
not at all...

BlakeorHenman
05-09-2007, 07:36 PM
He was the best player in the world for those two weeks.

the cat
05-09-2007, 07:39 PM
How could it be a fluke when Andy has made several more grand slam finals only to be denied by an all time great tennis player in Roger Federer. :scratch: Needless to say I voted no.

Rogiman
05-09-2007, 07:47 PM
He was the best player in the world for those two weeks.Make that two months...

Although Nalbandian should have won that SF :p

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-09-2007, 07:47 PM
How could it be a fluke when Andy has made several more grand slam finals only to be denied by an all time great tennis player in Roger Federer. Needless to say I voted no.

Lluboho fans don't listen to logic

t0x
05-09-2007, 07:47 PM
No slam win is a fluke.

Slam = Winning your 7 matches. Roddick managed that, even though Nalby had a good chance of ending it.

jazar
05-09-2007, 07:53 PM
absolutely

alfonsojose
05-09-2007, 07:54 PM
not at all. Just an USTA gift :D

The_Nadal_effect
05-09-2007, 07:55 PM
No slam win is a fluke.

Slam = Winning your 7 matches. Roddick managed that, even though Nalby had a good chance of ending it.

Ditto! At that level, nothing is a fluke.

nolop
05-09-2007, 07:56 PM
not at all. Just an USTA gift :D

:rocker2: :D

r2473
05-09-2007, 08:01 PM
I think someone on MTF has an avatar that says something like,

"Of course I believe in luck. How else can I explain the success of those I hate".

This place gets worse by the day. Can't "General" somehow be split into 2 sections. One for mindless threads like these and one for semi-intelligent professional tennis discussion?

jocaputs
05-09-2007, 08:05 PM
Nalbandian won USO 2003

Black Adam
05-09-2007, 08:20 PM
Yeah of course. :rolleyes: He still managed to make 3 more slam finals which a big time Fluke like Johansson failed to do. You say Nalbandian was robbed in 3rd set tiebreak, but I clearly remember Roddick saving that match point with a 128 mph ace. It's not his fault that David ran out of gas when it mattered the most.

ReturnWinner
05-09-2007, 08:21 PM
yeah and the luckiest and most helped player too
He was the best player in the world for those two weeks.

tangerine_dream
05-09-2007, 08:24 PM
Of course it was.
Ivan dreams about the day he could ever achieve one slam wonder status. :D

CyBorg
05-09-2007, 08:24 PM
What slam?

Roddick hasn't won a slam. There is certainly no 'Roddick Slam'.

He has however won a MAJOR.

r2473
05-09-2007, 08:37 PM
What slam?

Roddick hasn't won a slam. There is certainly no 'Roddick Slam'.

He has however won a MAJOR.

I was on your side of the argument when this was being debated some years ago. Unfortunatly, the other side won and they are called "slams".

Fumus
05-09-2007, 08:40 PM
Ivan dreams about the day he could ever achieve one slam wonder status. :D

I think he would just like to start with some titles...ert scratch that I meant wins. lol

MisterQ
05-09-2007, 08:51 PM
Nalbandian won USO 2003

His USO was a fluke, because Fat Dave was robbed big time in the semis...

This myth has become quite prevalent.

But in fact, on Nalbandian's only match point, Roddick hit a 138mph service winner. Too good...

I have lots of respect for Nalbandian and his intelligent game, but if he was so superior he should have been able to overcome Roddick despite the adverse conditions, and even after losing the third set.

aramis
05-09-2007, 08:57 PM
Even if Ferrero had been at full energy, I doubt he would have won. Maybe he could have taken the 2nd set, but that's it. Andy was serving like a madman that day. 120+ mph serves hitting the corners perfectly are unreturnable unless your name is Roger Federer.

justClaudia
05-09-2007, 09:01 PM
This myth has become quite prevalent.

But in fact, on Nalbandian's only match point, Roddick hit a 138mph service winner. Too good...

I have lots of respect for Nalbandian and his intelligent game, but if he was so superior he should have been able to overcome Roddick despite the adverse conditions, and even after losing the third set.

Absolutely.

I couldn't agree more with your words. If David was better than Andy he should've won, it's that simple for me, as a Nalbandian fan. I believe many of his loyal fans are over this a long time ago, I think he is too, so I don't understand why some people, people I've barely seen supporting him btw, still bring this up. :lol:

MisterQ
05-09-2007, 09:01 PM
Even if Ferrero had been at full energy, I doubt he would have won. Maybe he could have taken the 2nd set, but that's it. Andy was serving like a madman that day. 120+ mph serves hitting the corners perfectly are unreturnable unless your name is Roger Federer.

Andy was also outplaying Ferrero from the baseline quite often. He was on autopilot that day.

Snowwy
05-09-2007, 09:03 PM
Oh man this is a good thread and the best part is some people are saying it was a fluke.

aramis
05-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Even if Nalby had won, he probably would have choked under the pressure in the final. I don't see how he would have beaten even a tired Ferrero. Speaking of JCF, the guy just lost in the 2nd round. Time sure flys doesn't it?

Andre♥
05-09-2007, 09:06 PM
This myth has become quite prevalent.

But in fact, on Nalbandian's only match point, Roddick hit a 138mph service winner. Too good...

"Out"

Without that, Roddick would have lost...

MisterQ
05-09-2007, 09:22 PM
"Out"

Without that, Roddick would have lost...

I have no problem with this statement, as long as it is taken for what it is: total speculation. ;)

ReturnWinner
05-09-2007, 09:25 PM
you missed that crappy schedule which was determinant in nalbandian two injuries in that match

too that boy who shouted out when nalbandian was dominating a point in the tb and he tought that was a linesman


I have no problem with this statement, as long as it is taken for what it is: total speculation. ;)

ReturnWinner
05-09-2007, 09:26 PM
ah i froget the bad call when roddick broke nalbandian in the fifht set

Black Adam
05-09-2007, 09:32 PM
That match, 4 years ago made my day and I find it pleasantly amusing that people are still haunted by that match to this day :p :haha: :devil:

Grow a skin guys because what happened, happened. You can't change it :p

Winston's Human
05-09-2007, 09:35 PM
No.

Roddick was the hottest player on tour going into the 2003 US Open after winning the masters tournaments at both Canada and Cincinnati as well as winning Indianapolis.

realtin
05-09-2007, 09:37 PM
wow, there's a whole lot of ifs, buts and maybes in this thread...

LinkMage
05-09-2007, 09:41 PM
It was a gift by the USTA. Nalbandian got robbed in the 3rd set TB. Plus the USTA made other players play 3 or 4 matches in 4 days, while Roddick always had a day of rest in between his matches. No wonder Nalbandian and Ferrero were exhausted by the end of the tournament.

Good thing Federer and Nadal are exposing Roddick for what he is: the most overrated player on the tour. The only good thing he has is his serve. Once the rally starts, he's completely lost on the court.

ryder66
05-09-2007, 09:41 PM
I am not a big Roddick fan, but I think it is unfair to call his win a fluke. If his game was so bad, then why couldn't anyone else beat him? He managed to win this slam and get to the finals of others so he must do something right. Give credit where credit is due.

Burrow
05-09-2007, 09:43 PM
Nope, he was the best in the world for that short period of time where he won 2 masters series and then the us open. That is no fluke and a fantastic achievement for a guy aged 21.

ryder66
05-09-2007, 10:07 PM
I'm pretty new to these boards, but I've noticed how, to many, players can't seem to win on their own. In other words, player A only won because player B did this or didn't do that. Noone can seem to win because on that day, at that moment, they were the better player. Arguably, Roddick may not have been the best player on tour, but in that tournament, he was the best player and deserved to win. No fluke.

blosson
05-09-2007, 10:10 PM
yada yada yada. Andy won US Open 2003. He ended the year as number 1. That's a fact. He also made 3 other slam finals. Much better results than some other players.

LeChuck
05-09-2007, 10:33 PM
I'm a huge Nalbandian fan and I don't particularly like Roddick but people need to get over that semi-final. Roddick won more of the big points than David did so he deserved to win, end of story. The fact that Roddick came close to losing that match means jack sh*t. He dug deep and found a way to win it which is all that matters. Roddick win-loss record was an amazing 27-1 in the North American hardcourt season in 2003. He thoroughly deserved his grand slam title.

Melvins
05-09-2007, 11:41 PM
"Out"

Without that, Roddick would have lost...

:haha:

It's 7-7 in a tie-break, Nalbandian fails a ball because hear "out" from stands, point for Roddick and set point. How someone could say if no "Out" from stands, Roddick would have lost?:rolleyes:

Nalbandian would have won the point if no "out"? Are you sure?:rolleyes: And if Nalbandian really won the point, Roddick didn't can make an Ace or win at 7-8?:rolleyes:

:haha:

I think Roddick would have won US Open 2002, because Jorge Diaz called out first ball of Roddick at 4-5 in 5th set of QF versus Hewitt.:rolleyes: :lol:

The answer of thread question? Did you saw tennis in 2003 Summer? If yes, US Open winner is not a fluke.;)

P.S.: Another speculation, if Federer didn't leave football in his youth, maybe Roddick have 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Opens and, who knows, 1 Aussie Open. But don't have. :p

NYCtennisfan
05-09-2007, 11:50 PM
Roddick was only broken 5 or 6 times int he entire 2 weeks and two of those times were by Henman in the 1st round. Nobody could touch his serve and even Nalbandian, who was playing his best tennis, could only break him once.

He was far and away the best player in that USO and fully deserved to win.

TMJordan
05-09-2007, 11:53 PM
How about Nooooooooooooooooooooooo

Sofyaxo
05-09-2007, 11:57 PM
Who really cares what happened with Nalby way back when? Because you know what, bottom line is that Andy won. Then he went on to win the whole thing. End story.

And he would have had a few Wimbledon's if it wasn't for Roger.

One slam flukes don't end up in slam finals year after year. They fade off, and do nothing.

Roger The Great
05-09-2007, 11:57 PM
No, he beat all seven players he faced. :shrug:

Sjengster
05-10-2007, 12:12 AM
With the winning run he was on going into the event, I should think almost any other winner would have been labelled a fluke instead. Although that said, Nalbandian was easily the second best performer during that summer hardcourt season - a distant second, but he had the most consistent results after Roddick. Anyhow, as I've said before on these boards, if he hadn't missed a sitter forehand into the net when leading 4-2 in the third set tiebreak then this issue of false calls, overrules and being robbed would never have arisen.

One funny thing was that at the end of the match, Andreas Egli announced, "Game set match Andy Roddick, three sets to two, 6-7, 3-6, 7-6, 6-1, 5-3", and it was picked up on by our astonished commentator. Maybe that was his way of showing that he felt Roddick's late break in the fifth set was fraudulent?

Sofyaxo
05-10-2007, 12:20 AM
Yep because it's easy to pretend to break people.

Sjengster
05-10-2007, 12:30 AM
Yep because it's easy to pretend to break people.

Well according to one of the Argentine posters in this thread Nalbandian had a bad call go against him in that game too. I should emphasise that I'm not being serious about Egli's curious umpiring. ;)

AsianSensation
05-10-2007, 12:31 AM
nah, he clearly deserved it with the form he showed during the summer

GlennMirnyi
05-10-2007, 12:33 AM
Never in doubt.

Havok
05-10-2007, 12:42 AM
He played in 5 tournaments during the summer hardcourt series in 2003 including the US Open. He won 4 of the 5 (lost in the semis to eventual champ Henman, who just happened to be his 1r opponent at the US Open, how ironic). He won both TMS events back to back and beat pretty much anybody that mattered on tour during that run. No David didn't fuck up that semifinals. He wasn't cheated out of anything. Roddick hit an ace to save the one MP Nalbandian had during the 3rd set tie break and that deflated Nalbandian.

What Roddick did during that summer is exactly what Federer has been doing on the grass since 2003 and what Nadal is doing from 2005-present. Was Ferrero's lone RG win a fluke? Hardly, he made 3 finals there and was king of the clay courts during those times, just like Roddick was in 2003, though from thereon out he had to share his ownage of the summer HC series with the best tennis player ever; Federer.

Didn't mean for this post to be this long, but oh well.:silly:

ASP0315
05-10-2007, 01:29 AM
USO win might be fluke.(beacuse basically he was given 'celebrity treatment' i.e getting good scheduling and getting some help with line judges etc. and offcourse he should have lost to Nalby who outplayed him in all aspects but lucked out with his big serve.)

but he reached wimbledon finals twice.(is that fluke too.??:confused: I guess not.)
I'm not big fan of Roddick but i enjoy watching him.

Kolya
05-10-2007, 01:30 AM
No, just perfect timing.

AnnaK_4ever
05-10-2007, 01:49 AM
Not a fluke of course. Andy played unbelievable that summer.
Though it's pretty obvious he used to be a bit lucky with the draws at Grand Slams: total number of Top-10 players he's faced en route to his all 4 GS finals is ZERO.

Sjengster
05-10-2007, 01:51 AM
Not a fluke of course. Andy played unbelievable that summer.
Though it's pretty obvious he used to be a bit lucky with the draws at Grand Slams: total number of Top-10 players he's faced en route to his all 4 GS finals is ZERO.

He chose a pretty good moment for that one win over a Top 10 player in a Slam though, you have to admit. ;)

Johnny Groove
05-10-2007, 01:53 AM
P.S.: Another speculation, if Federer didn't leave football in his youth, maybe Roddick have 3 Wimbledon titles, 2 US Opens and, who knows, 1 Aussie Open. But don't have. :p

And if Rafa doesnt leave football in HIS youth, Roger is already the GOAT :angel:

GlennMirnyi
05-10-2007, 01:53 AM
He chose a pretty good moment for that one win over a Top 10 player in a Slam though, you have to admit. ;)

You mean the win the linesmen/umpire gave him?

AnnaK_4ever
05-10-2007, 01:53 AM
He chose a pretty good moment for that one win over a Top 10 player in a Slam though, you have to admit. ;)

Well, like I said his hard court season in 2003 was just :eek:

Havok
05-10-2007, 03:21 AM
Not a fluke of course. Andy played unbelievable that summer.
Though it's pretty obvious he used to be a bit lucky with the draws at Grand Slams: total number of Top-10 players he's faced en route to his all 4 GS finals is ZERO.

I know right :lol:. Though he beat TONS of quality players hovering around the top 10, or playing top 10 tennis, but who got there a short while after Andy ended up beating them. Nalbandian at the USO is a prime example. PLus we all know Henman was top 10 during that time, he was just ranked so low because of an injury layoff I believe. Heck he won TMS Paris beating both Federer and Roddick.

yomike
05-10-2007, 03:34 AM
Thank God he's only ever fluked a slam coz I can't bare the thought of someone with an incredibly boring game win another GS title.

aramis
05-10-2007, 03:42 AM
Fluke? Nah, he did beat the #1 player in the world in that final, after all. Just trying to put a positive spin on that top 10 stat.

Lillith
05-10-2007, 03:44 AM
Some of you people are delusional. I'm not particularly a fan of Roddick, but the kid has been in the top 10 for several years, had a tremendous 03, and has had the bad luck of 1) facing Federer in majors and 2) playing in an era less suited to his game than the conditions of the 90s. And yet he's still #3 in the world.


I'm glad most of apparently weren't around and watching tennis when Nasty was playing. If you have such a virulent reaction to Roddick (or Ljubicic or Blake or whatever player the particular poster loathes), I can't imagine the collective reaction of MTF to Nasty or Connors in their hey day, when they made Johnny look like a freaking angel.

zethand
05-10-2007, 01:43 PM
You mean the win the linesmen/umpire gave him?

You are the best!!!

croat123
05-10-2007, 01:48 PM
it wasn't a fluke
it was an amazing draw, extremely biased scheduling, and cheating on the part of the crowd

Fumus
05-10-2007, 02:14 PM
it wasn't a fluke
it was an amazing draw, extremely biased scheduling, and cheating on the part of the crowd

Yea, and phenomenal play from an amazing athlete at, looking back at it, was his prime.

tennis2tennis
05-10-2007, 02:19 PM
no! the guy earned it
But he hasn’t brought a lot to his game since!