How many more Slams would Roddick have if there was no Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How many more Slams would Roddick have if there was no Federer?

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 01:10 PM
Usually I hate if questions...But this I wonder:

How many Slams would Roddick have without Fed?

Roddick is really kind of a poor guy. Everytime he is in good shape he runs into a hot Federer and gets destroyed.

I personnaly think Roddick would have at least 2-3 more Slams and would be considered one of the best players of the last 10 years, if there was no Federer.

marcRD
01-29-2009, 01:13 PM
Wimbledon 2003, 2004, 2005. USOPEn 2006, Australian Open 2007

6 grand slams I think.

ReturnWinner
01-29-2009, 01:14 PM
many kinda like three or four but anyway he got lucky in the only slam he has and its not like he had usually beaten the very top player to get to the last stages in slams .

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 01:17 PM
Wimbledon 2003, 2004, 2005. USOPEn 2006, Australian Open 2007

6 grand slams I think.

6? seems a bit much to me....it is not plausible to assume that he would have won everytime had he faced somebody other then Federer.

CmonAussie
01-29-2009, 01:20 PM
Wimbledon 2003, 2004, 2005. USOPEn 2006, Australian Open 2007

6 grand slams I think.

Disagree, i think Hewitt would have won Wimbledon 2004 & 05 [plus USO 04 & 05] if he didn`t come up against FED there:sad:
Hewitt loved playing A.Rod in big matches @ slams, so if those finals had been Lleyton vs Andy - pretty sure Hewitt would have won the majority:devil:

Auscon
01-29-2009, 01:22 PM
At least 2 more I think

Was taken out;

Wimbledon 03 (semi), 04 (final), 05 (final)
USO 06 (final), 07 (qf)
AO 07 (semi), 09 (semi)

I often wonder about the same situation for Lleyton - didn't meet Roger in as many latter stages of slams, but was still in great form in a number of them;

AO 04 (R4)
Wimbledon 04 (qf), 05 (semi), 08 (r4)
USO 04 (final), 05 (semi)

Sebby
01-29-2009, 01:25 PM
How many RG would Federer have if there was no Nadal :sad: :mad:

marcRD
01-29-2009, 01:25 PM
Disagree, i think Hewitt would have won Wimbledon 2004 & 05 [plus USO 04 & 05] if he didn`t come up against FED there:sad:
Hewitt loved playing A.Rod in big matches @ slams, so if those finals had been Lleyton vs Andy - pretty sure Hewitt would have won the majority:devil:

I would put Roddick as favorite anytime against Hewitt on grass, I think Roddick is better on grass than Hewitt.

marcRD
01-29-2009, 01:26 PM
How many RG would Federer have if there was no Nadal :sad: :mad:

3 or 4, I am sure of RG 2005-2007, but not so sure he would have beaten Djokovic in RG 2008.

Iván
01-29-2009, 01:28 PM
I want to see djokovic -fed on clay

CmonAussie
01-29-2009, 01:30 PM
I would put Roddick as favorite anytime against Hewitt on grass, I think Roddick is better on grass than Hewitt.


well its a matter of opinion, Hewitt won 6 grass titles [including Wimby 02:cool:], and lost to Federer 3 times @ Wimby [04,05,08].. Roddick won 4 grass titles, and lost to Federer 3 times @ Wimby [03,04,05]! <>Lleyton also has a fantastic grass record in Davis Cup, plus holds a 6-3 H2H over Roddick overall, with a 3-1 H2H @ the slams;)

partygirl
01-29-2009, 01:31 PM
I impersonally think Roddick would have at least 2-3 more Slams and would be considered one of the best players of the last 10 years, if there was no Federer.
This is why you have to look past the slams themselves. it's not everything.




A lot of things go into the definition of a career. A lot goes into to being truly great.
There are always going to be dominant players in the game.

NinaNina19
01-29-2009, 01:52 PM
Roddick was lucky he even got the finals of these slams. It was such a weak era then. Had he not gotten a dream draw at the AO, he would have never made the quarters. He got unbelievably lucky. He wasn't even supposed to win USO 03, but obviously he got important points from some very questionable line calls against Nalbandian. And then Ferrero who was exhausted in the final. That's not to say Roddick wouldn't have beaten Ferrero, but he should've lost to Nalbandian had the conditions been fair.

Mansave_75
01-29-2009, 01:55 PM
Roddick never will win anymore Grand Slam, if there are some guys called Federer and Nadal on the draw, they're both mentally stronger than Andy, nowadays I honestly don't see Andy lifting any GS throphy on his arms.
I respect Andy as a player but I don't think he deserves to have 3 or 4 GS titles, apart from serve what else is this guy? He's average returner and groundstroker.
He has what he deserves 1 GS won to eternal dissapointer named Ferrero.
But no more...and he'll end his career with that only.

Andi-M
01-29-2009, 01:58 PM
He's have about 4. But was a "mugish" era with Fed in, would've be a complete joke era with just A-rod and Hewitt competing for slams.

partygirl
01-29-2009, 02:08 PM
I respect Andy as a player but I don't think he deserves to have 3 or 4 GS titles, apart from serve what else is this guy? :haha:
You respect him as a player but see him as all serve, that is not much of a player. :rolls:
What about his heart? His dedication to fitness, his work ethic & willingness to always try? longevity much?

NinaNina19
01-29-2009, 02:13 PM
:haha:
You respect him as a player but see him as all serve, that is not much of a player. :rolls:
What about his heart? His dedication to fitness, his work ethic & willingness to always try? longevity much?

What about his lack of game? What about his lack of respect for anyone aside from Federer and Nadal oncourt? A lot of players have heart and discipline.

Crazy Girl
01-29-2009, 02:30 PM
20??:o:o:o:confused::confused::confused:

El Legenda
01-29-2009, 02:35 PM
yeah here we got again....How many slams would ROddick have if there was no Federer and he started every Grand Slam in the SF vs a midget with no hands and the same in the final?

Mohammad
01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
Nothing, I think!
Now he should look forward to retirement!

partygirl
01-29-2009, 02:44 PM
A lot of players have heart and discipline.i was just stating that he was one & the longevity factor too.

~*BGT*~
01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
He would have the 2003 and 2006 USO, 2003-2005 Wimbledons and MAYBE the 2007 AO (not sure if he would have beaten Gonzo in the final)

Disagree, i think Hewitt would have won Wimbledon 2004 & 05 [plus USO 04 & 05] if he didn`t come up against FED there:sad:
Hewitt loved playing A.Rod in big matches @ slams, so if those finals had been Lleyton vs Andy - pretty sure Hewitt would have won the majority:devil:

well its a matter of opinion, Hewitt won 6 grass titles [including Wimby 02:cool:], and lost to Federer 3 times @ Wimby [04,05,08].. Roddick won 4 grass titles, and lost to Federer 3 times @ Wimby [03,04,05]! <>Lleyton also has a fantastic grass record in Davis Cup, plus holds a 6-3 H2H over Roddick overall, with a 3-1 H2H @ the slams;)

But Andy is 1-0 on grass, including a straight sets win at 2004 QC :p

What about his lack of game? What about his lack of respect for anyone aside from Federer and Nadal oncourt? A lot of players have heart and discipline.

Murray is a perfect example of respect for an opponent on court? :scratch:

yeah here we got again....How many slams would ROddick have if there was no Federer and he started every Grand Slam in the SF vs a midget with no hands and the same in the final?

How many more East London challengers do you think Ljubo is gonna retire with? :D

habibko
01-29-2009, 03:36 PM
he would have taken at least 2-3 more slams, same with many other guys, the loot would have been more shared.

I want to see djokovic -fed on clay

if Djokovic didn't give up/chicken out/run away in Monte Carlo, you would have seen the thrashing Fed gives him on clay :yeah:

Bazooka
01-29-2009, 04:02 PM
I don't know how many, but really, not this AO if that was the intent behind the question.

Horatio Caine
01-29-2009, 04:03 PM
I think it is reasonable to suggest that he might have been able to win at least two of the other Slam finals he appeared in. So, 3-4 Slams imo.

Bilbo
01-29-2009, 04:11 PM
the answer you are searching for is slim to none

ASP0315
01-29-2009, 05:09 PM
the only reason he won USO 2003 is that he got a favorable scheduling. where as ferrero had to play 5 matches in a row without much breaks.
At wimbledon, he defeated a lot of weak players + the rain delays once again favored him as well.(i'm particulary refereing to the luck he got against bracciali in rd 2 and the lucky netcords against johhanson in the rain delayed SF which put hin in the finals there.)
Even if there was no federer he would win no slams cause there were a lot of players like agassi, henman etc would have taken him out.(i means both agassi and henman owned this guy when he was at peak. Even rainer schuettler owned him. :lol: )

i agree his ground game and movement are pretty weak. apart fron the serve he hasn't got much game to win more slams.

groundstroke
01-29-2009, 05:11 PM
7 Grand Slams, those 3 finals and the other 3 times he's lost to Fed in a GS.

miura
01-29-2009, 05:24 PM
Usually I hate if questions...But this I wonder:

How many Slams would Roddick have without Fed?

Roddick is really kind of a poor guy. Everytime he is in good shape he runs into a hot Federer and gets destroyed.

I personnaly think Roddick would have at least 2-3 more Slams and would be considered one of the best players of the last 10 years, if there was no Federer.
Stupid question. How many countries would USA invade if there was no UN?

Manila ESQ
01-29-2009, 05:26 PM
Without Federer, Agassi could have won 2 more US Opens!

Without Federer, Nadal could have won the French and Wimbledon back to back for 3 years in a row!

I would love to have an alternative universe without Federer. I wouldn't mind if Pete wasn't there too.

bluefork
01-29-2009, 05:27 PM
At least 18 including 3.5 French Opens.

Commander Data
01-29-2009, 05:56 PM
Stupid question. How many countries would USA invade if there was no UN?

I would say about the same number because the USA does not care about the UN and the UN is strongly controlled by the USA anyway...


I do not get your point though...You say Federer is the UN or what? Swiss is neutral, so that would not make too much sense.

NinaNina19
01-29-2009, 07:32 PM
Murray is a perfect example of respect for an opponent on court? :scratch:He has gotten a lot better in the last 18 months but yeah he is better than Roddick at least. He doesn't call other players pricks. He also stopped throwing tantrums on court at 20, while Roddick still hasn't stopped. Last year's incident at AO:o. Way worse than what faker did at USO.

LleytonMonfils
01-29-2009, 07:35 PM
He has gotten a lot better in the last 18 months but yeah he is better than Roddick at least. He doesn't call other players pricks. He also stopped throwing tantrums on court at 20, while Roddick still hasn't stopped. Last year's incident at AO:o. Way worse than what faker did at USO.

Maybe you should come back when you turn 20. :rolleyes:

NinaNina19
01-29-2009, 07:37 PM
Maybe you should come back when you turn 20. :rolleyes:

What is that supposed to mean:rolleyes:?

NinaNina19
01-29-2009, 07:49 PM
He would have the 2003 and 2006 USO, 2003-2005 Wimbledons and MAYBE the 2007 AO (not sure if he would have beaten Gonzo in the final)


He actually might not have had the 05 Wimbledon. Didn't Hewitt get beaten by Fed in the semis? Or was that 04? Roddick in 04 would have beaten Hewitt, but Roddick in 05 wouldn't have. Also this is stupid to discuss. People are acting like Roddick came upon some great misfortune to play in Fed's era when really he was lucky to be in the top 5 for so long with the pis weak era. He has a consistent game, but he's not good enough to be contending for slams.

leng jai
01-29-2009, 07:57 PM
If there were no Federer he would have lost the US Open in 2003. So 0.

Mansave_75
01-29-2009, 08:42 PM
If there were no Federer he would have lost the US Open in 2003. So 0.

Totally I agree. :worship:
His Roland Garros record is 4-7 (including 4 defeats in 1st round) absolutely tedious for a top ten player. :eek:
He has 1 Grand Slam to his credit and he can be consider himself very fortunate. ;)

Action Jackson
01-29-2009, 08:45 PM
How many fathers of the world have wished they withdrew around 30 seconds earlier than they did.

Crazy Girl
01-29-2009, 09:03 PM
How many fathers of the world have wished they withdrew around 30 seconds earlier than they did.:lol::lol::haha::lol::lol:
:yeah::yeah::yeah:

Crazy Girl
01-29-2009, 09:05 PM
:lol::lol::haha::lol::lol:
:yeah::yeah::yeah:In this MTF there are many fathers in those conditions........:worship::worship:

ORGASMATRON
01-29-2009, 09:43 PM
This thread is inconsequencial to a certain degree. If Roger wasnt there there was many other players who could have won slams. Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Davydenko and others i cant think of now. Having said that he might have won a wimby or two, who knows.

superslam77
01-29-2009, 09:58 PM
3 or 4, I am sure of RG 2005-2007, but not so sure he would have beaten Djokovic in RG 2008.

yeah the problem here is piggie :mad:
3-4 roland garros
1 wimbledon
1 rome ms
3 monte carlo ms
1 hamburg ms

fed would have 17-18 gs with 3 year grandslams?, 19 MS and still be #1..he would have won every big tourney except bercy :eek:


and yes fed owns djokovic on any surface..remember monte carlo last year?

but i'm really glad that rogi saved tennis from duck :worship: or is it turkey now :confused:

~*BGT*~
01-29-2009, 10:28 PM
How many fathers of the world have wished they withdrew around 30 seconds earlier than they did.

Probably yours. :shrug:

TMJordan
01-29-2009, 10:30 PM
38

El Legenda
01-29-2009, 10:31 PM
Stupid question. How many countries would USA invade if there was no UN?

as many as they wanted?

Action Jackson
01-29-2009, 10:40 PM
Probably yours. :shrug:

Test tube baby.

Byrd
01-29-2009, 11:02 PM
Roddick would of got rid of famine in developing countries, initiated world peace and explored the terrains of Mars if it wasn't for Federer.

rofe
01-29-2009, 11:07 PM
Realistically, I would say one more - the 04 Wimbly final. He had Fed on the ropes in that one. Fed never had the potential to lose in the other ones.

MisterQ
01-29-2009, 11:49 PM
I think he'd have two more.

Of course, it's impossible to know what the impact of those victories would be on his confidence and motivation, and how that would affect his subsequent form and improvement.

out_here_grindin
01-30-2009, 12:05 AM
He would have a Wimby and at least 1 more US and possible an AO.

meihaditalab
01-30-2009, 12:08 AM
0, maybe 1

Fedex
01-30-2009, 12:08 AM
I'm not sure he wins any more to be honest. Roddick was just never multiple grand slam winning type of material.

I think Hewitt has a bigger case than Roddick, if you're gonna play the "If there was no Federer" card. Hewitt would've probably won 4-5 slams without Federer always being in the way.

Fedex
01-30-2009, 12:37 AM
How many fathers of the world have wished they withdrew around 30 seconds earlier than they did.

:lol:

Too true George.

Henry Chinaski
01-30-2009, 12:48 AM
waaay too hypothetical.

US Open 2006, James Blake was superior to Roddick that year. Wimbledon 06, Mario Ancic was arguably #2 on grass. Oz 2006, well take your pick between Kiefer, Haas and Davydenko.

l_mac
01-30-2009, 12:48 AM
yeah here we got again....How many slams would ROddick have if there was no Federer and he started every Grand Slam in the SF vs a midget with no hands and the same in the final?

:haha:

El Legenda
01-30-2009, 03:38 AM
I am guessing so many that he would be the US President right now, or atleast invented a cure for baldness or enough Grand slams to have his own cooking show on the Food Network.

marcRD
01-30-2009, 02:35 PM
I think the hypothesis of a world without Nadal is more interesting, because it would really change tennis history. Federer would have something like 9-10 clay master series, 3-4 RGs, 3 calendar grand slams, 10 straight slams and he would be without any doubt labelled as the greatest of all time. Nadal has made it possible for the debate about who is the greatest player of all time to continue forever. He has simply been the only obstacle in Federers tennis career, making Federer doubt about himself, even entering periods where he has been mentaly damaged (like after Wimbledon).

Like some people said many people can beat Roddick on any surface, but no one can beat Federer on grass or even clay except Nadal.

Havok
01-31-2009, 12:09 AM
Roddick was lucky he even got the finals of these slams. It was such a weak era then. Had he not gotten a dream draw at the AO, he would have never made the quarters. He got unbelievably lucky. He wasn't even supposed to win USO 03, but obviously he got important points from some very questionable line calls against Nalbandian. And then Ferrero who was exhausted in the final. That's not to say Roddick wouldn't have beaten Ferrero, but he should've lost to Nalbandian had the conditions been fair.

Um ..... are you retarded? AO + Wimbledon semis in 2003, won Montreal+Cincy back to back and two other smaller hardcourt events during the summer and he wasn't supposed to win the USO?:retard: The story of questionable calls vs Nalbandian is very :yawn. The only call that Nalbandian couldn't get over was the serve Roddick hit to save the match point which was clearly in. That's it.

If Federer didn't exist, I would put him at 3-6 more GS titles. No way in hell would Hewitt beat him on grass at the Wimbledon finals. Lleyton is majorly overrated on the grasscourts, even though he has a nice record on the surface. Had they not slowed it down to such a slow pace he would not have the same results.

Wimbledon 04 + 05 nobody would have been able to top Roddick, same goes for USO 06. Wimbledon 03 as well (would have definitely beaten Philippoissis).

roberthenman
01-31-2009, 01:06 AM
0, because there nadal, murray and djokovic and before safin, agassi and soo

NinaNina19
01-31-2009, 01:17 AM
Um ..... are you retarded? AO + Wimbledon semis in 2003, won Montreal+Cincy back to back and two other smaller hardcourt events during the summer and he wasn't supposed to win the USO?:retard: The story of questionable calls vs Nalbandian is very :yawn. The only call that Nalbandian couldn't get over was the serve Roddick hit to save the match point which was clearly in. That's it.

If Federer didn't exist, I would put him at 3-6 more GS titles. No way in hell would Hewitt beat him on grass at the Wimbledon finals. Lleyton is majorly overrated on the grasscourts, even though he has a nice record on the surface. Had they not slowed it down to such a slow pace he would not have the same results.

Wimbledon 04 + 05 nobody would have been able to top Roddick, same goes for USO 06. Wimbledon 03 as well (would have definitely beaten Philippoissis).
05 Wimbledon Roddick was playing like shit and was lucky to get to the finals. Where do the 6 slams come from lol? I would say 3. USO 03, Wimbledon 04, and USO 06. Imagine the horror of Roddick winning 3 slams though.

kyleskywalker007
01-31-2009, 01:34 AM
1- This thread has been opened countless times
2- He shouldn't have won that USO 03 to begin with!

fred perry
01-31-2009, 02:29 AM
I would say one. :wavey:

~*BGT*~
01-31-2009, 04:13 AM
1- This thread has been opened countless times
2- He shouldn't have won that USO 03 to begin with!

Don't blame Andy that Nalbandian is a choker and is too lazy to get into proper shape. :hug: He should have had a slam by now. :wavey:

FlameOn
04-11-2009, 08:43 AM
I think, including his one US Open, that he would have 6. 3 US Opens, 1 Wimbledon, and 2 Australian Opens.

I'm still holding out hope. After all, even though he's now reached "veteran" status, he's still fit as a fiddle. He's won 27 titles (including at least one every year), 76% of his career matches (that's only about 4.5% less than Federer), and has finished in the Top 10 for almost a decade. Feats like that should have "multiple Slam champ" written all over them. It's interesting how one player (Federer) can steal so many of your chances. :D

Sapeod
04-11-2009, 08:49 AM
I agree with you with 6. Roddick was really stopped by Federer. He was lucky to win the US Open he did.

FlameOn
04-11-2009, 08:55 AM
I agree with you with 6. Roddick was really stopped by Federer. He was lucky to win the US Open he did.
Well he did convincingly beat Ferrero in the final. What you mean is that he was lucky with his timing right? Any later and he'd have no slams. :D

leng jai
04-11-2009, 09:00 AM
How many slams would Roddick have without his killer slice?

Sapeod
04-11-2009, 09:07 AM
Well he did convincingly beat Ferrero in the final. What you mean is that he was lucky with his timing right? Any later and he'd have no slams. :D
Federer was nearing his best then. Anyway he won it and he would have a few more without Federer on the tour.

Selby
04-11-2009, 09:43 AM
How come only 1 Wimbledon when he had 2 Wimbledon finals against Federer? I think he would probably have beaten both Grosjean in 2004 and Hewitt in 2005.
So IMO it's like 2-3 USOs, 2 Wimbledons and maybe 1 AO.

FlameOn
04-11-2009, 10:18 AM
How come only 1 Wimbledon when he had 2 Wimbledon finals against Federer? I think he would probably have beaten both Grosjean in 2004 and Hewitt in 2005.
So IMO it's like 2-3 USOs, 2 Wimbledons and maybe 1 AO.
Just guessing that he would've lost one of the Wimby finals, and I put two Australian Opens since he's been a 4-time semifinalist losing to Federer in 2 of them.

Sapeod
04-11-2009, 10:18 AM
Andy would have all of these if Federer wasn't there...probably :lol:

Wimbledon 2003 - beating Philippoussis
US Open 2003 - beating Ferrero
Wimbledon 2004 - beating Grosjean
Wimbledon 2005 - beating Hewitt
US Open 2006 - beating Davydenko
Australian Open 2007 - beating Gonzalez

US Open 2007 would go to Djokovic and Australian Open 2009 would still go to Nadal.
So altogether that's 6 grand slams he would've won.

Grenouille
04-11-2009, 10:29 AM
I think Andy would be a different player if Federer wasn't there. He wouldn't have had the big slump he had in 2006.

Selby
04-11-2009, 11:25 AM
I think Andy would be a different player if Federer wasn't there. He wouldn't have had the big slump he had in 2006.

Exactly, everybody is talking about how Federer directly prevented Slams from Roddick but people forget about how he affected him mentally by doing so.
It's similar in a way to how Nadal is affecting Federer mentally nowadays.

heya
04-11-2009, 12:12 PM
Actually, he was a money and charity-obsessed, unathletic retard before Federer showed up. His greedy mom defeated his thoughts before he was an adult.
If you do internet research into his ancestry, you'll see that 2 brothers of his great great grandpa were mentally ill bank robbers. At least he can marry a trophy model to keep her away from magazine covers and movie directors.

Winston's Human
04-11-2009, 12:23 PM
Andy would have all of these if Federer wasn't there...probably :lol:

Wimbledon 2003 - beating Philippoussis
US Open 2003 - beating Ferrero
Wimbledon 2004 - beating Grosjean
Wimbledon 2005 - beating Hewitt
US Open 2006 - beating Davydenko
Australian Open 2007 - beating Gonzalez

US Open 2007 would go to Djokovic and Australian Open 2009 would still go to Nadal.
So altogether that's 6 grand slams he would've won.

I also think that Andy would have won these six slams without Federer. The only one I wonder about would be a Roddick-Hewitt Wimbledon 2005. Of course, as others have posted, Andy might not have had the early 2006 slump without the Federer effect on his mental game.

Guga_fan
04-11-2009, 01:13 PM
For me he would have won these two, besides his US Open title:
Wimbledon 2003 - beating Philippoussis
Wimbledon 2004 - beating Grosjean

Polikarpov
04-11-2009, 01:17 PM
Maximum of 3.

SaFed2005
04-11-2009, 01:46 PM
Maybe he would've won 15 slams by now and passed the Sampras record or maybe he would win 0... who knows... Anything is possible in these "if" threads and nothing can be proven wrong.


No really anything could've happened. This kind of thread is pointless and I have probably seen how many sma would hewitt or roddick win if Fed was not around thread too many times.

Burrow
04-11-2009, 01:59 PM
Unlike Marat Safin, he was unable to beat him, get over it.

Safin :worship:

Acer
04-11-2009, 02:02 PM
Wimbledon 2005 - beating Hewitt

I beg to differ

~*BGT*~
04-11-2009, 02:17 PM
Andy would have all of these if Federer wasn't there...probably :lol:

Wimbledon 2003 - beating Philippoussis
US Open 2003 - beating Ferrero
Wimbledon 2004 - beating Grosjean
Wimbledon 2005 - beating Hewitt
US Open 2006 - beating Davydenko
Australian Open 2007 - beating Gonzalez

US Open 2007 would go to Djokovic and Australian Open 2009 would still go to Nadal.
So altogether that's 6 grand slams he would've won.

I think he would have lost to Fernando. Gonzo was in GOAT mode for those two weeks.

timafi
04-11-2009, 03:42 PM
Andy lost to Muller at the USO in 2005

lost to Gasquet in the quarters at the 2007 Wimbledon

lost to Kohlschreiber at the Australian last year in the 3th round

lost to Tipsarevic at Wimbledon lat year in the 3th round

lost to Djokovic at the USO last year

can't bloody blame Federer for Roddick being a 1 slam wonder:rolleyes::lol:

miura
04-11-2009, 03:56 PM
Grosjean would have had a slam :hearts: :rocker2:

FlameOn
04-11-2009, 08:13 PM
Andy lost to Muller at the USO in 2005

lost to Gasquet in the quarters at the 2007 Wimbledon

lost to Kohlschreiber at the Australian last year in the 3th round

lost to Tipsarevic at Wimbledon lat year in the 3th round

lost to Djokovic at the USO last year

can't bloody blame Federer for Roddick being a 1 slam wonder:rolleyes::lol:
Well, fair enough but:

2003 Wimbledon SF - lost to Federer
2004 Wimbledon F - Lost to Federer
2005 Wimbledon F - Lost to Federer
2006 US Open F - Lost to Federer
2007 Australian Open SF - Lost to Federer
2007 US Open QF - Lost to Federer
2009 Australian Open SF - Lost to Federer

His losses to Federer at Slams outweigh losses to others at slams (and his losses to Federer probably contributed mentally to some of the other losses).

MalwareDie
04-11-2009, 08:21 PM
He would have one slam because Nalbandian would have become the new king of tennis.

General Suburbia
04-11-2009, 09:05 PM
How many slams would Roddick have without his killer slice?
That slice is more important to his game than his serve is.

General Suburbia
04-11-2009, 09:31 PM
Unlike Marat Safin, he was unable to beat him, get over it.

Safin :worship:
Yes. One good win against a choking Federer makes Safin the potentially greatest player ever.

NinaNina19
04-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Well, fair enough but:

2003 Wimbledon SF - lost to Federer
2004 Wimbledon F - Lost to Federer
2005 Wimbledon F - Lost to Federer
2006 US Open F - Lost to Federer
2007 Australian Open SF - Lost to Federer
2007 US Open QF - Lost to Federer
2009 Australian Open SF - Lost to Federer

His losses to Federer at Slams outweigh losses to others at slams (and his losses to Federer probably contributed mentally to some of the other losses).
Yeah, but lets not act like every slam in which he lost to Federer he would've won. It was a weak enough era even with Federer in it.

Burrow
04-11-2009, 11:22 PM
Yes. One good win against a choking Federer makes Safin the potentially greatest player ever.

Nice way of taking things out of proportion.

Fact is that Safin triumphed in one of the greatest matches of all time.

Federer wasn't choking, did you even see the lob Marat struggled to get on Federer's first match point? Genius.

Even if Federer was choking, he never choked against the likes of Roddick, Marat was a much more talented and Dangerous player than Roddick ever was and will be, the threat was there and Roddick has never been able to propose such a serious threat.

leng jai
04-12-2009, 12:00 AM
That was not one of the greatest matches of all time.

The only reason why Federer choked (if he did) was because he knew Safin had the ability to beat him, whereas the Duck has no hope.

habibko
07-05-2009, 07:51 PM
add Wimbledon 2009 to the list.

NadalSharapova
07-05-2009, 07:53 PM
4 or 5.

Better question would be, how many slams would fed have if nadal was born 4 years earlier. Fed would have about 4 or 5 max.

1 player each way makes a difference.

lessthanjake
07-05-2009, 08:47 PM
6 overall. 2003, 2004, and 2009 Wimbledons. 2003 and 2006 US Open. 2007 Australian Open.

Guga_fan
07-05-2009, 08:49 PM
6 overall. 2003, 2004, and 2009 Wimbledons. 2003 and 2006 US Open. 2007 Australian Open.
No way he would have defeated that Gonzo in 2007 AO

rocketassist
07-05-2009, 08:52 PM
Roddick would have won about six or seven Slams.

Dini
07-05-2009, 08:53 PM
5 or 6.

GlennMirnyi
07-05-2009, 08:55 PM
*Were.

If there were.

Subjunctive mood.

rubbERR
07-05-2009, 08:55 PM
too many

FNT
07-05-2009, 09:44 PM
4 or 5.

Better question would be, how many slams would fed have if nadal was born 4 years earlier. Fed would have about 4 or 5 max.

1 player each way makes a difference.

Nadal's been around (winning Slams) since 2005. Fed won plenty. Relax.

MacTheKnife
07-05-2009, 09:46 PM
There's not a top player in history that can't play the "if" game.

oz_boz
07-05-2009, 09:54 PM
4 orhow many slams would fed have if nadal was born 4 years earlier. Fed would have about 4 or 5 max.


Nadal won his slams so far between 18 and 22, Fed between 21 and 28, so they would not have interfered much unless you know some about Rafa's future. Also Nadal 2008-9 season would coincide with Fed's 2004-5, not sure that Rafa would have won Wimby or AO in that case.

RagingLamb
07-05-2009, 09:56 PM
I can only guess what the answer is for Roddick. But the slam he lost today was on his racket. He has himself to blame for losing.

mistercrabs
07-05-2009, 09:57 PM
*Were.

If there were.

Subjunctive mood.

I really hate people who correct grammar on forums, mainly because they invariably make their own mistakes. "If there was" is perfectly acceptable grammatically, since the subjunctive is dying in English. And you can take that from an English teacher. In fact, since most people say "was", it's probably more correct.

lessthanjake
07-05-2009, 09:58 PM
No way he would have defeated that Gonzo in 2007 AO

You might be right. I tend to think, though, that a player on a ridiculous hot streak will come back down to earth when faced with his first grand slam final. That's why I think Roddick would've won.

Golfnduck
07-05-2009, 09:58 PM
I'd say Wimby 04, 05, 09, USO 06, Aussie 07. So 5 or 6 majors. But he doesn't, so who knows.

mcnasty
07-05-2009, 10:15 PM
I'd say Roddick would have 4 more slams to his name, but he wouldn't be the better player for all that.

The Roddick we saw today was clearly head and shoulders above the 2004 version of Roddick.

Back then he was all about sheer brute strength. Now he approaches the net with purpose, vollies with authority, varies his serves brilliantly, and hits his backhand as well if not better than his forehand.

And who is Roddick to thank for all this? Roger Federer. Roger Federer because Roddick has had to elevate his game to this astounding level just to be able to compete. Let's hope he keeps it up.

JimmyV
07-05-2009, 11:06 PM
At least 3 or 4, who knows, there's no sense in playing what if's.

MurrayFan1
07-05-2009, 11:08 PM
A few Wimbledons and maybe another USO. 4 or 5 I reckon.

swebright
07-05-2009, 11:13 PM
On that 2003 semi day a wimbledon, I couldn't have imagine Roger would have 15 and Andy with 1.

That's all I'd say.

leng jai
07-06-2009, 12:10 AM
What if Rodclown married Mirka and Fedclown got Brooklyn Decker?

austennis22
07-06-2009, 03:21 AM
Roddick was lucky he even got the finals of these slams. It was such a weak era then. Had he not gotten a dream draw at the AO, he would have never made the quarters. He got unbelievably lucky. He wasn't even supposed to win USO 03, but obviously he got important points from some very questionable line calls against Nalbandian. And then Ferrero who was exhausted in the final. That's not to say Roddick wouldn't have beaten Ferrero, but he should've lost to Nalbandian had the conditions been fair.

Anytime anyone ever says that a player 'got to the finals by luck' essentially loses the credibility of their entire post.

If you knew anything about tennis you would know that luck doesn't get you through 6 matches to the final.

Mimi
07-06-2009, 03:25 AM
I can only guess what the answer is for Roddick. But the slam he lost today was on his racket. He has himself to blame for losing.
you are right, he should have won the second set :sad:

GlennMirnyi
07-06-2009, 03:40 AM
I really hate people who correct grammar on forums, mainly because they invariably make their own mistakes. "If there was" is perfectly acceptable grammatically, since the subjunctive is dying in English. And you can take that from an English teacher. In fact, since most people say "was", it's probably more correct.

Making mistakes is absolutely understandable.

To recur on them is plain stupidity.

The subjunctive mood is dying for you. As long as it's in the grammar books and in literary works, it's alive.

By the way, you've got some nerve to consider yourself an English teacher. "If I was" is plain wrong.

Huntress555
07-06-2009, 04:51 AM
I dont know, anything can happen. Maybe he might have a couple more but who knows.

whattheheck
07-06-2009, 05:01 AM
I think he could've ended up with 8, or at least match the accomplishment of Agassi.

Ariadne
07-06-2009, 09:31 AM
hmm... he was by far the best player apart from Federer in Wimbly 03,04,05,09 -- USOpen 06 -- AusOpen 07. So probably 6 more.

Bad Religion
07-06-2009, 09:35 AM
Without the USTA help in 2003 Roddick would have won Zero Grand Slams

Commander Data
07-06-2009, 09:41 AM
Making mistakes is absolutely understandable.

To recur on them is plain stupidity.

The subjunctive mood is dying for you. As long as it's in the grammar books and in literary works, it's alive.

By the way, you've got some nerve to consider yourself an English teacher. "If I was" is plain wrong.

Okay, thanks for the correction. But is it really wrong? I think, I heard that expression quite alot by Americans :confused: Doesn't mean it is correct, of course. But if it is commonly used I'm fine. What do the native Americans say to that?

lessthanjake
07-06-2009, 09:45 AM
Americans don't use subjunctive right half the time, to be honest.

mistercrabs
07-06-2009, 05:52 PM
Making mistakes is absolutely understandable.

To recur on them is plain stupidity.

The subjunctive mood is dying for you. As long as it's in the grammar books and in literary works, it's alive.

By the way, you've got some nerve to consider yourself an English teacher. "If I was" is plain wrong.

Can I assume by the Brazilian flag next to your name that you're not a native speaker of English? Coz you don't know wtf you're talking about. It's not wrong. "If I was" is more usually used, and therefore more correct. Or we can go back in time and suggest that we should be using "thou" instead of "you" in certain cases. Nobody, but nobody, actually says "if i were", and I'm glad English is a language that adapts rather than stagnates like French.

By the way, you used the phrase "recur on" incorrectly in that sentence. My authority for that is both grammar books and the fact that nobody says it in English.

andylovesaustin
07-06-2009, 06:05 PM
Okay, thanks for the correction. But is it really wrong? I think, I heard that expression quite alot by Americans :confused: Doesn't mean it is correct, of course. But if it is commonly used I'm fine. What do the native Americans say to that?

If I were is correct.. It's subjunctive--clauses or statements contrary to fact at present. In other words, one can't use simple past tense because it would be expressing fact in the past.

If.. is part of a conditional clause.. not expressing fact but more a possible condition, see?

One can also use subjunctive in expressing wishes.. like... I wish I were... and there are other scenarios, too..

But... you know since this is an informal forum, well a lot of native speakers use simple present to express the subjunctive.

As I recall, French has subjunctive, too, in the same type of contexts.. I remember "il faut plus infinitive" and "il faut que plus subjunctive clause" or something like that? It's been a long time..

So don't be too hard on yourself.. It's tricky--even for native- speaking Americans!

mistercrabs
07-06-2009, 06:21 PM
If I were is correct.. It's subjunctive--clauses or statements contrary to fact at present. In other words, one can't use simple past tense because it would be expressing fact in the past.

If.. is part of a conditional clause.. not expressing fact but more a possible condition, see?

One can also use subjunctive in expressing wishes.. like... I wish I were... and there are other scenarios, too..

But... you know since this is an informal forum, well a lot of native speakers use simple present to express the subjunctive.

As I recall, French has subjunctive, too, in the same type of contexts.. I remember "il faut plus infinitive" and "il faut que plus subjunctive clause" or something like that? It's been a long time..

So don't be too hard on yourself.. It's tricky--even for native- speaking Americans!

It's actually not tricky at all. What most people say is correct. That's the nature of English. That's why the grammar books don't use "thou", and why people don't teach words like "yonder". Some people have too much respect for books. Grammar books reflect what language does, language doesn't reflect what grammar books do. English is a vibrant, constantly changing language, with the biggest vocabulary and unmatched expressive power for that very reason. I was told by experts in their field, people who've written grammar books, that "if I was" should be taught to students, because everybody uses it. It's a transitional period for this particular phrase, but to suggest "if I was" is wrong is pedantic and ridiculous.

heya
07-06-2009, 08:26 PM
Federer has foot-in-mouth disease, no language could assist his specially-treated brat self.

GlennMirnyi
07-07-2009, 02:32 AM
Okay, thanks for the correction. But is it really wrong? I think, I heard that expression quite alot by Americans :confused: Doesn't mean it is correct, of course. But if it is commonly used I'm fine. What do the native Americans say to that?

:lol: I studied American English when I was younger, and my grammar (American) states that you never use "was" in conditional sentences.

Can I assume by the Brazilian flag next to your name that you're not a native speaker of English? Coz you don't know wtf you're talking about. It's not wrong. "If I was" is more usually used, and therefore more correct. Or we can go back in time and suggest that we should be using "thou" instead of "you" in certain cases. Nobody, but nobody, actually says "if i were", and I'm glad English is a language that adapts rather than stagnates like French.

By the way, you used the phrase "recur on" incorrectly in that sentence. My authority for that is both grammar books and the fact that nobody says it in English.

:lol: How can you say such bullshit with a straight face... :lol: I'm not gonna extend myself in this discussion - this isn't a grammar forum - but it's not because the population doesn't know how to use the subjunctive that it should be abolished. Every language isn't spoken as it should by the general populace - the norms of languages aren't changed because of that. Don't embarrass yourself. The disappearance of "thou" happened in the modern age - when languages were still forming their bases - including English. It's a clearly different situation.

The "ne" part of negatives is required in written French but nobody uses it in daily use. Don't think the grammars will change because of that.

Recur in? Sorry I forgot the preposition I should have used. :) Still better than to affirm the subjunctive mood will be abolished. :lol:

If I were is correct.. It's subjunctive--clauses or statements contrary to fact at present. In other words, one can't use simple past tense because it would be expressing fact in the past.

If.. is part of a conditional clause.. not expressing fact but more a possible condition, see?

One can also use subjunctive in expressing wishes.. like... I wish I were... and there are other scenarios, too..

But... you know since this is an informal forum, well a lot of native speakers use simple present to express the subjunctive.

As I recall, French has subjunctive, too, in the same type of contexts.. I remember "il faut plus infinitive" and "il faut que plus subjunctive clause" or something like that? It's been a long time..

So don't be too hard on yourself.. It's tricky--even for native- speaking Americans!

All languages derived from Latin heavily employ the subjunctive mood. Maybe that's why it's easier for native speakers of those languages to identify the subjunctive.

shotgun
07-07-2009, 02:56 AM
Wimbledon 2009 belongs to Roddick as much US Open 2003 belonged to Nalbandian. Roddick is not an underachiever by any means (neither an overachiever).

rofe
07-07-2009, 03:01 AM
Wimbledon 2009 belongs to Roddick as much US Open 2003 belonged to Nalbandian. Roddick is not an underachiever by any means (neither an overachiever).

How can you compare the two? Nalby apparently lost because all bad line calls went in Roddick's favor. So it was some huge conspiracy to give Andy his first GS final. Nothing of the sort happened in Wimbly this year.

Mimi
07-07-2009, 03:08 AM
i guess 2-3 more :angel:

Forehander
07-07-2009, 03:24 AM
Can I assume by the Brazilian flag next to your name that you're not a native speaker of English? Coz you don't know wtf you're talking about. It's not wrong. "If I was" is more usually used, and therefore more correct. Or we can go back in time and suggest that we should be using "thou" instead of "you" in certain cases. Nobody, but nobody, actually says "if i were", and I'm glad English is a language that adapts rather than stagnates like French.

By the way, you used the phrase "recur on" incorrectly in that sentence. My authority for that is both grammar books and the fact that nobody says it in English.

Oh. So more usually used = more correct now?

It's actually not tricky at all. What most people say is correct. That's the nature of English. That's why the grammar books don't use "thou", and why people don't teach words like "yonder". Some people have too much respect for books. Grammar books reflect what language does, language doesn't reflect what grammar books do. English is a vibrant, constantly changing language, with the biggest vocabulary and unmatched expressive power for that very reason. I was told by experts in their field, people who've written grammar books, that "if I was" should be taught to students, because everybody uses it. It's a transitional period for this particular phrase, but to suggest "if I was" is wrong is pedantic and ridiculous.

And clearly they weren't experts in their field.

chammer44
07-07-2009, 03:29 AM
People use "irregardless" all the time. That don't make it a word.

Thinking don't make it so. NO sir no.

mistercrabs
07-07-2009, 07:43 AM
:lol: I studied American English when I was younger, and my grammar (American) states that you never use "was" in conditional sentences.



:lol: How can you say such bullshit with a straight face... :lol: I'm not gonna extend myself in this discussion - this isn't a grammar forum - but it's not because the population doesn't know how to use the subjunctive that it should be abolished. Every language isn't spoken as it should by the general populace - the norms of languages aren't changed because of that. Don't embarrass yourself. The disappearance of "thou" happened in the modern age - when languages were still forming their bases - including English. It's a clearly different situation.

The "ne" part of negatives is required in written French but nobody uses it in daily use. Don't think the grammars will change because of that.

Recur in? Sorry I forgot the preposition I should have used. :) Still better than to affirm the subjunctive mood will be abolished. :lol:



All languages derived from Latin heavily employ the subjunctive mood. Maybe that's why it's easier for native speakers of those languages to identify the subjunctive.

When they were forming their bases? So now it's perfectly formed is it? And what's the basis for that ridiculous statement? 200 years from now, people like you will be saying that English of today was still forming bases for the future version.

You will, trust me, find plenty of grammar books that state "if I was" as a correct form. Go to a bookshop and check. Every book I ever taught out of included it.

OF COURSE LANGUAGE IS CHANGED BY THE GENERAL POPULACE. THAT'S HOW LANGUAGE DEVELOPS. You don't really think that university professors thought up every pronunciation and grammatical change in English since the time of Shakespeare? People spontaneously change languages, half the time by making mistakes. The plural of pea used to be "pease", but was changed because people kept making a mistake and thought it was just a standard plural. Grammar books are not books which dictate the rules, they actually catalogue them. And some grammar books take time to catch up.

If French people for the next century never again utter "ne", then the grammar books will change ... trust me. Pick up an 18th century grammar book and pick up a modern one and tell me how you account for all the differences. Where did they come from?

In short, your entire statement on the matter betrays somebody who has no idea how any language works (including Portuguese). And that goes for the idiot who agreed with you as well.

Here, read this if you don't believe me: http://www.lsadc.org/info/pdf_files/Is_English_Changing.pdf

mistercrabs
07-07-2009, 07:50 AM
People use "irregardless" all the time. That don't make it a word.

Thinking don't make it so. NO sir no.

Lol. If everybody used irregardless tomorrow, it would be in the dictionary the next day. In Shakespeare's time, people would say something like "be not afraid". In the years since, the uneducated populace invented the word "don't" in this context, and it became "don't be afraid". Every word in the dictionary was invented, many of them by Shakespeare himself. People used them and they spread.

Goldenoldie
07-07-2009, 08:33 AM
Lol. If everybody used irregardless tomorrow, it would be in the dictionary the next day. In Shakespeare's time, people would say something like "be not afraid". In the years since, the uneducated populace invented the word "don't" in this context, and it became "don't be afraid". Every word in the dictionary was invented, many of them by Shakespeare himself. People used them and they spread.

I guess ppl r gonna have 2 agree wiv u m8, cos txtspeak is killing English like, know wot I mean. ur WICKED.

freeandlonely
07-07-2009, 08:41 AM
How about if there is no Federer, who won Wimby03,USO03,......,RG09,Wimby09......

Goldenoldie
07-07-2009, 08:43 AM
Can I assume by the Brazilian flag next to your name that you're not a native speaker of English? Coz you don't know wtf you're talking about. It's not wrong. "If I was" is more usually used, and therefore more correct. Or we can go back in time and suggest that we should be using "thou" instead of "you" in certain cases. Nobody, but nobody, actually says "if i were", and I'm glad English is a language that adapts rather than stagnates like French.

By the way, you used the phrase "recur on" incorrectly in that sentence. My authority for that is both grammar books and the fact that nobody says it in English.

Tell that to the cast of "Fiddler on the Roof" If I were a rich man, Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.

Aaric
07-07-2009, 11:43 AM
Maybe the USO and one or two Wimbledon :shrug:

Mint Chip
07-07-2009, 01:47 PM
Same amount he has now

casabe
07-07-2009, 02:44 PM
3 wimbledons, 1 more uso and at least one AO

andylovesaustin
07-07-2009, 03:08 PM
It's actually not tricky at all. What most people say is correct. That's the nature of English. That's why the grammar books don't use "thou", and why people don't teach words like "yonder". Some people have too much respect for books. Grammar books reflect what language does, language doesn't reflect what grammar books do. English is a vibrant, constantly changing language, with the biggest vocabulary and unmatched expressive power for that very reason. I was told by experts in their field, people who've written grammar books, that "if I was" should be taught to students, because everybody uses it. It's a transitional period for this particular phrase, but to suggest "if I was" is wrong is pedantic and ridiculous.

The correct form is "if I were, then I would"--with conditional clauses.. using subjunctive followed by conditional.

Of course, there's usually different standards/expectations between formal and informal conversation. I'm not sure about other languages because I am only a native speaker of one language. I know with French, for example, since I'm not a native speaker, my French is considered "good" or "bad" based upon my mistakes. NOw, I'm not sure if the French hold each other to the same standard?

With native speakers of English, some aren't even familiar with the most subtle grammatical rules. Some don't know the difference between predicate nominatives or adjectives. Some don't realize one uses objective case after prepositions, insisting to use the subjective case, particularly with compound objects like for you and I, when the correct wording is for you and ME. One wouldn't say for I in for a single object form, for example. That's easy to hear. But a lot of native speakers think for you and I SOUNDS more correct in the compound form, bit it's not.

In addition, a lot of people don't know the distinction between lie and lay, with lie being an intransitive. I lie on the beach, for example. So.. it's lie for the present, "lay" for the past, and "lain" for the past participle. On the other hand "lay" is simple present for the transitive very, followed by a directive object. Consequently, it's I lay the book on the table. The past is laid and the present participle is also laid. The confusion is obviously with the past tense of lie and then of course the present participle "lain" which a lot of people just don't use at all. I mean, a person might get away with the confusion in informal conversation, but if one is writing for an English class or is publishing something, well... there is a correct form.

BTW "irregardless" is not a word. In fact, it's nonsensical. It's like a double negative. It's confusing "regardless" with "irrespective," combing the "negating" prefix "ir" with the negating suffix, "less." :) So I don't think it will be in the dictionary any time soon. ;)

However, I don't correct somebody necessarily if he/she makes a mistake in informal contexts. I might use either word correctly .. but I'm not going to correct somebody unless somebody asks..

Anyway...:)

oranges
07-07-2009, 03:39 PM
Roddick is so winning the July bandwagon :lol:

mistercrabs
07-07-2009, 03:59 PM
BTW "irregardless" is not a word. In fact, it's nonsensical. It's like a double negative. It's confusing "regardless" with "irrespective," combing the "negating" prefix "ir" with the negating suffix, "less." :) So I don't think it will be in the dictionary any time soon. ;)

However, I don't correct somebody necessarily if he/she makes a mistake in informal contexts. I might use either word correctly .. but I'm not going to correct somebody unless somebody asks..

Anyway...:)

I agree, that's why GlennMyrni should stop correcting people on a tennis forum. Even if you disagree with me (and "if I was" is perfectly fine even in formal contexts) this is an informal context and therefore it's most certainly correct.

And you say "irregardless" is nonsensical. Are you suggesting that every other word in English makes sense? E.g. price/worth mean almost the same thing, so why do "priceless" and "worthless" mean opposite things? Because languages don't operate by logic, that's why. That's why every rule in English has a million exceptions.

kyleskywalker007
07-12-2009, 06:01 AM
:lol: I studied American English when I was younger, and my grammar (American) states that you never use "was" in conditional sentences.



:lol: How can you say such bullshit with a straight face... :lol: I'm not gonna extend myself in this discussion - this isn't a grammar forum - but it's not because the population doesn't know how to use the subjunctive that it should be abolished. Every language isn't spoken as it should by the general populace - the norms of languages aren't changed because of that. Don't embarrass yourself. The disappearance of "thou" happened in the modern age - when languages were still forming their bases - including English. It's a clearly different situation.

The "ne" part of negatives is required in written French but nobody uses it in daily use. Don't think the grammars will change because of that.

Recur in? Sorry I forgot the preposition I should have used. :) Still better than to affirm the subjunctive mood will be abolished. :lol:



All languages derived from Latin heavily employ the subjunctive mood. Maybe that's why it's easier for native speakers of those languages to identify the subjunctive.


You are a mug of epic proportions. Norms of languages are changed because of that. Grammar rules are supposed to reflect the way people speak at a certain point in time. If grammar never changed, we would be speaking a dead language, not one that is alive. American english speakers do use "if I was...", initially it was wrong, but it is widespread now, and most people use that form even if it is not correct. So, eventually, it will make it into the grammar book. But don't fool yourself, people do speak that way!

River
07-13-2009, 01:42 AM
Six slams is over the top. Andy would have won at least 3 Grand Slams w/o Fed, no doubt 2004 Wimby, 2006 USO, and perhaps an Australian Open.

Add 2009 Wimby and you get... wait, 5 total with the 03 USO? Wow. Maybe 6 wasn't such a bad guess after all.

crude oil
07-13-2009, 01:46 AM
tough to say...definately more than what he has now.

but its not as if roddick dominates the rest of the field bar federer. this equation is not the same as "How many RGs federer would win if there was no nadal?" as federer clearly owned everyone else on clay.

crude oil
07-13-2009, 06:59 AM
lol...i didnt even notice the grammar discussion.

:haha:

:haha:

hilarious stuff...keep it up.

Jimnik
07-13-2009, 08:13 AM
Possibly

AO 2007, 2009
Wimby 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009
USO 2006, 2007

Definitely

USO 2003

Anywhere from 1-9 slams.

ballbasher101
07-13-2009, 09:43 AM
I would say 6 majors. Federer has broken his heart at Wimbledon time and time again and I liked it :devil:.

MatchFederer
07-13-2009, 11:32 AM
Dunno but if Federer wasn't around then the era would have been devoid of one truly great player until Nadbo came along.

Commander Data
07-13-2009, 05:03 PM
lol...i didnt even notice the grammar discussion.

:haha:

:haha:

hilarious stuff...keep it up.

Indeed! The grammar discussion is a real gem here.

If I was to post the topic again, I would stick with the initial title...:p

correct? hehe...

Allez
07-13-2009, 05:55 PM
About 20 I think...

mitalidas
07-13-2009, 06:01 PM
Impossible to know. He might have won the finals against the non-Federer opponent, but he could have lost them as well. He may have won tournaments where he didn't reach the finals in reality because he got stopped by Federer earlier in the tournament. Blah blah.

HattonWBA
07-13-2009, 09:51 PM
Maybe 2 more

River
07-13-2009, 11:17 PM
I find it odd how a majority here speaks of how much his game is one-dimensional.. yet he could have won so many slams.

Then again, being an all-rounder never did mean anything in my opinion. Roddick was and is never going for some sort of legendary status; which I believe the Top 4 have been praised too much to the point of... I just find it funny how this one-dimensional player would have gotten so many slams.

For me, it's safe to say that the conversation about Roddick would be slightly different had he won at least half of the finals he's been in.

I mean, man... at least 4 definite titles if w/o RF and perhaps 3 potentials. It's hard to believe how one man, FedEx himself, would make such a difference in another's sole career like that.

MatchFederer
07-14-2009, 10:18 AM
Possibly

AO 2007, 2009
Wimby 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009
USO 2006, 2007

Definitely

USO 2003

Anywhere from 1-9 slams.

It DOES NOT WORK like this.

Just think for one moment. :D
:wavey:

Commander Data
07-14-2009, 12:11 PM
Roddick is the only player that has consistently shown up in the later stages of Slams besides Federer and Nadal. I think, he is way underrated. Think about his Slam success and compare it with other, so called talents.


It is not just fluke, the guy has game. I beliebe in the Agassi/ Sampras era Roddick would have about 4 Slams.

marcRD
07-14-2009, 05:55 PM
I think I have to rank Roddick in the same class as Courier after the dislay in the Wimbledon final. This guy has been taken out of Federer in 8 grand slams, 4 slam finals. Roddicks roblem is that there never are these events where Federer simly doesnt show up, which was the case with Sampras. Federer, the ghost is always there to destroy Roddicks dreams.

Roddick I must rank nowadays higher than Safin and Hewitt, not in talent where he is simply avarage but overall because of mental strength, fighting spirit, consistency and a real will to improve his tennis even at almost 27.

Roddick maybe reminds most of Ivanisevic but is so much better because he shows up on 3 slams and not only Wimbledon but everywhere the ghost, Roger Federer is there to take him down.

I know you should not talk about would haves and could haves, but in Roddicks case it is almost unfair to not mention these words, I dont know any career which has been so damaged by one single player.

If Federer would not exist Roddick would be the nr1 before Nadal showed up and would have won more than 5 grand slams, that much I am certain would happen (In my head I have atleast 3 Wimbledon, 2 US OPEN and maybe 1 Australian open).

mitalidas
07-14-2009, 07:21 PM
If Federer would not exist Roddick would be the nr1 before Nadal showed up and would have won more than 5 grand slams, that much I am certain would happen (In my head I have atleast 3 Wimbledon, 2 US OPEN and maybe 1 Australian open).

Really? In that phase between Sampras and Federer (and before Nadal emerged), Roddick was getting owned by Hewitt up until a couple seasons ago and Hewitt was also remarkably consistent in 3 slams until his injury/other issues sprung.