That would be nice if Nadal [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

That would be nice if Nadal

FishNAndy4Eva
09-04-2004, 01:45 AM
Would win more game than Jenkins did.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 01:47 AM
Now I dont like Roddick but after seeing that set surely no one can claim "Roddick is just serve". He has looked the most impressive of the top players so far and not because of his serve.

jazz_girl
09-04-2004, 01:48 AM
I thought this match was gonna be more even and interesting to watch, let's see how the other sets go...

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 01:48 AM
You'd think he could do better, seeing as he is one player who managed to beat Roger Federer in straights sets on a hard court a few months ago.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 01:50 AM
Now I dont like Roddick but after seeing that set surely no one can claim "Roddick is just serve". He has looked the most impressive of the top players so far and not because of his serve.

It's almost just about his serve though. I guess that's why he wins 97% of tie-breaks with the other 3% being Federer and Henman.

FishNAndy4Eva
09-04-2004, 01:52 AM
It's almost just about his serve though.

How come he broke Nadal 3 times in a row :scratch:

WyveN
09-04-2004, 01:52 AM
It's almost just about his serve though.

Perhaps he is managing to break Nadal's serve using his own serve somehow but for some reason I cant spot it on the tv.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 01:55 AM
How come he broke Nadal 3 times in a row :scratch:

Nadal isn't exactly known for his serve is he...

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 01:58 AM
In fact he's got one of the weakest serves when compared to the others (Sjeng Schalken as well).

WyveN
09-04-2004, 01:59 AM
In fact he's got one of the weakest serves when compared to the others (Sjeng Schalken as well).

Didn't hold him back against Federer.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 01:59 AM
No, Nadal isn't known for his serve. Praising Roddick for breaking it is absolutely fucking laughable.

That said, obviously Roddick is better than Nadal right now. Nadal was never going to win this, but I was hoping he coudl keep all the sets.

I'm very dissapointed to see that isn't the case.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:01 AM
Didn't hold him back against Federer.
Erm. Haven't Federer's issues that day been discussed at great length.

Okay, fine. Roddick is one of the best returners on tour, even better than Federer, because he can break the serve of the great Nadal.

Wow. That is the stupidest thing that I have EVER said. Please tell me that your point was not going in that direction.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:02 AM
Didn't hold him back against Federer.

Federer's 1st serves aren't exactly weak you know...

FishNAndy4Eva
09-04-2004, 02:05 AM
Hum, the whole point was that he was able to break 3 times in a row, and it takes more than a serve to do that, it's the only direction the point was going.

Shy
09-04-2004, 02:07 AM
You'd think he could do better, seeing as he is one player who managed to beat Roger Federer in straights sets on a hard court a few months ago.
well, Nadal just came back from an injury.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:09 AM
Hum, the whole point was that he was able to break 3 times in a row, and it takes more than a serve to do that, it's the only direction the point was going.
Are you the person that I was responding to? Didn't.... think.... so.

That said, if that was all he was trying to get across then good lord - the Captain Obvious Award of the Year goes to WyveN.

My Lord. The people who think that Roddick can not hit a forehand, move, or occasionally get a return in play are not worth making comments at.

But trying to boast about his returning skills by using an overwhelmed Nadal as an example is just ridiculous, I'm sorry. He also broke Jenkins a few time. SO what? It doesn't make him a good returner, and it doesn't change the fact that the serve is his main weapon. SO?!

My lord.

I have to go take a nap. The retardation in this thread is setting me alight.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:09 AM
Wow. That is the stupidest thing that I have EVER said. Please tell me that your point was not going in that direction.

No I wasn't, reread the thread :)

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:09 AM
well, Nadal just came back from an injury.

Fair enough. But still, according to most people here Roddick is a god for breaking Nadal's serve at will.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:10 AM
well, Nadal just came back from an injury.
He's also about 12 years old and isn't known for having a good serve.

RETARDATION. It's everywhere ;)

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:10 AM
No I wasn't, reread the thread :)
I'm a little annoyed over this match and have clearly missed your point.

FishNAndy4Eva
09-04-2004, 02:12 AM
Are you the person that I was responding to? Didn't.... think.... so.

That said, if that was all he was trying to get across then good lord - the Captain Obvious Award of the Year goes to WyveN.

My Lord. The people who think that Roddick can not hit a forehand, move, or occasionally get a return in play are not worth making comments at.

But trying to boast about his returning skills by using an overwhelmed Nadal as an example is just ridiculous, I'm sorry. He also broke Jenkins a few time. SO what? It doesn't make him a good returner, and it doesn't change the fact that the serve is his main weapon. SO?!

My lord.

I have to go take a nap. The retardation in this thread is setting me alight.

So because you weren't talking to me, I can't comment?

No one contested the fact that his serve is his main weapon... And no one said he was a good returner... Maybe you need to read the thread again, there is nothing retarded about it - except maybe your half-agressive and smart ass posts.

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:14 AM
It doesn't make him a good returner, and it doesn't change the fact that the serve is his main weapon.
no, breaking Nadal doesn't make him a good returner because Nadal's serve is not strong, but it shows that Roddick can win somehow the points against Nadal when the ball is in play. Or did Nadal double fault four times every service game that Roddick didn't have to do anything? no, Nadal got outgunned by Roddick when the ball was actually in play... SO?

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:15 AM
So because you weren't talking to me, I can't comment?

No one contested the fact that his serve is his main weapon... And no one said he was a good returner... Maybe you need to read the thread again, there is nothing retarded about it - except maybe your half-agressive and smart ass posts.
Erm. Looking at your signature, yes, there is a lot of retardation in this thread. I'm sure that is exactly why the Fed fans hate him ::p

"half-aggressive"? Wtf?

By the way, I did read the thread, and it's full of retardation. Some of my own, but mainly other people's.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:16 AM
I'm a little annoyed over this match and have clearly missed your point.


I didn't think Goenitz's evidence (that Nadal has a weak serve) for claiming Roddick is "just about all serve" made much sense.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:16 AM
no, breaking Nadal doesn't make him a good returner because Nadal's serve is not strong, but it shows that Roddick can win somehow the points against Nadal when the ball is in play. Or did Nadal double fault four times every service game that Roddick didn't have to do anything? no, Nadal got outgunned by Roddick when the ball was actually in play... SO?
I mean this in the nicest way - but everybody who is telling me to read the thread also needs to tell Neely to read the thread. I already addressed these people.

Do I need to start quoting myself now and posting things twice so that everybody understands? :confused:

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:17 AM
I didn't think Goenitz's evidence (that Nadal has a weak serve) for claiming Roddick is "just about all serve" made much sense.
That's nice, but I've never said that Roddick was all about serve. I also made it EXTREMELY bloody clear in this thread what I think about posters who say this, so why are we continuing with this discussion?

Do I need to write my thoughts again? :confused:

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:19 AM
Rebecca, be sure I've read the thread but that doesn't change the thing that I just said referring to your quote

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:19 AM
no, breaking Nadal doesn't make him a good returner because Nadal's serve is not strong, but it shows that Roddick can win somehow the points against Nadal when the ball is in play. Or did Nadal double fault four times every service game that Roddick didn't have to do anything? no, Nadal got outgunned by Roddick when the ball was actually in play... SO?

Thank you!

Irregardless of opponent, the play of Roddick in that set was very high and should have shown people he is more then just a serve.

And that would make me "Captain obvious" on most other message boards but here "Roddick is nothing except his serve" is one of the most common things I read.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:21 AM
Fine, so Andy Roddick isn't all mostly about his serve then *cough*Agassi*cough*.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:21 AM
Thank you!

Irregardless of opponent, the play of Roddick in that set was very high and should have shown people he is more then just a serve.

And that would make me "Captain obvious" on most other message boards but here "Roddick is nothing except his serve" is one of the most common things I read.
Sigh.

Time to repeat what I said:

The people who say that Roddick can not do anything either than stand behind the baseline and serve are going to think that no matter what you say, no matter who he plays. Using and overmatched and overwhelmed Nadal as evidence to prove otherwise is ridiculous, totally unnecessary, and completely duh. Ivo Heuberger could return Nadal's serve and play him a bit off the ground too. Should we make a thread about how great he is now? :confused:

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:23 AM
Rebecca, be sure I've read the thread but that doesn't change the thing that I just said referring to your quote
Okay. Whatever. Next thing you know you're going to tell me that the sky is more often than not blue.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:23 AM
That's nice, but I've never said that Roddick was all about serve. I also made it EXTREMELY bloody clear in this thread what I think about posters who say this, so why are we continuing with this discussion?


Obviously my initial comments were dirrected at people who think that Roddick was all about his serve so I am not sure why you decided to enter the discussion.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:25 AM
Obviously my initial comments were dirrected at people who think that Roddick was all about his serve so I am not sure why you decided to enter the discussion.

I said: "It's almost just about his serve though."

Dirk
09-04-2004, 02:26 AM
Andy is playing great all over. Everything is working. Nadal didn't play well with Ivo so I'm not shocked by the result but the 1st set was :eek:

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:26 AM
Obviously my initial comments were dirrected at people who think that Roddick was all about his serve so I am not sure why you decided to enter the discussion.
Because I have a loathing for all things Captain Obvious. I'm sorry that I haven't made that blatently clear already :confused:

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:27 AM
Andy is playing great all over. Everything is working. Nadal didn't play well with Ivo so I'm not shocked by the result but the 1st set was :eek:
Well Andy was ready for Nadal, so I'm not all that surprised. As I said, I'm dissapointed that the sets haven't been closer, but that is all.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:28 AM
I said: "It's almost just about his serve though."
Apparently you aren't allowed to say that. I guess that you haven't been posting here that long? ;)

But... it's totally cool to call Hewitt, one of the best returners and fastest guys around, talentless. Just don't you dare say that Roddick's game revolves around his serve.

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Ivo Heuberger could return Nadal's serve and play him a bit off the ground too.
true, but he could never outplay Nadal, one of the better baseliners of the game, like Roddick was able to in this match on a few occassions. (if his backhand was so pathetic or if his groudstrokes were so terrible Nadal would be supposed to win more points, isn't it?)

So Roddick's main weapon is still his serve, but his overall game is improving a lot because otherwise he would not win so many points when the ball is in play.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Andy is playing great all over. Everything is working. Nadal didn't play well with Ivo so I'm not shocked by the result but the 1st set was :eek:

What would you expect from a player whos just come back from injury? Andy Roddick may be playing great "all over", but Nadal is hardly the calibre of a player to test him really is it.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:29 AM
Ivo Heuberger could return Nadal's serve and play him a bit off the ground too. Should we make a thread about how great he is now? :confused:

When Heuberger wins a set of Nadal in 14 minutes while blasting winners in every direction I certainly will make a thread for him.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:32 AM
Apparently you aren't allowed to say that. I guess that you haven't been posting here that long? ;)

But... it's totally cool to call Hewitt, one of the best returners and fastest guys around, talentless. Just don't you dare say that Roddick's game revolves around his serve.

Sometimes, if I can get away from all the 'whos the hottest player on tour' crap.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:32 AM
true, but he could never outplay Nadal, one of the better baseliners of the game, like Roddick was able to in this match on a few occassions. (if his backhand was so pathetic or if his groudstrokes were so terrible Nadal would be supposed to win more points, isn't it?)

So Roddick's main weapon is still his serve, but his overall game is improving a lot because otherwise he would not win so many points when the ball is in play.
Um. Are you trying to compete with WyveN for the Captain Obivous award or what? :confused:

By the way, I was AT the Heuberger match, and YES, Ivo did outplay Rafa a few times. So really, there goes that line.

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:33 AM
Next thing you know you're going to tell me that the sky is more often than not blue.
if you needed to be told that I would tell you

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:34 AM
When Heuberger wins a set of Nadal in 14 minutes while blasting winners in every direction I certainly will make a thread for him.

From that snide tone you're still implying that some people here have said Andy Roddick is just about his serve. No-one said he was all just about his serve.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:34 AM
When Heuberger wins a set of Nadal in 14 minutes while blasting winners in every direction I certainly will make a thread for him.
I wasn't aware that Nadal was the bar with which top players should be compared. That is why using him for this is ridiculous. Nadal is up and coming, but he is NOT the player that Roddick is right now.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:35 AM
From that snide tone you're still implying that some people here have said Andy Roddick is just about his serve. No-one said he was all just about his serve.
Not in this thread, but some people say it. And they will continue to say it not matter how many pointless comparisons WyveN chooses to draw. Which is why Captain Obvious must die a horrible, painful death, and never be seen again. Please?

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:35 AM
I have to go take a nap. The retardation in this thread is setting me alight.


I think the source of what is setting you alight is at Flushing Meadows.

Dirk
09-04-2004, 02:36 AM
let's hope nadal can hold on.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:36 AM
if you needed to be told that I would tell you
I didn't need to be told anything about Roddick either, did I?

Find me a quote where I have said ANYTHING that indicates I need to, or take back that comment.

Jesus.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:37 AM
I wasn't aware that Nadal was the bar with which top players should be compared. That is why using him for this is ridiculous. Nadal is up and coming, but he is NOT the player that Roddick is right now.

And we all know that when Roddick faces a world-class opponent like Agassi it's his serve that keeps him in the match. *cough*Agassi-Cincinatti*cough*

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:38 AM
I think the source of what is setting you alight is at Flushing Meadows.
That Enqvist loss was pretty rough.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 02:38 AM
Not in this thread, but some people say it. And they will continue to say it not matter how many pointless comparisons WyveN chooses to draw. Which is why Captain Obvious must die a horrible, painful death, and never be seen again. Please?

A lot of the people who say it actually believe it and I am sorry for pointing out one of the great misconceptions on these boards, I most certainly deserved to be ranted at for 2 pages.

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:40 AM
I didn't need to be told anything about Roddick either, did I?

Find me a quote where I have said ANYTHING that indicates I need to, or take back that comment.

Jesus.
I won't take back any comments because I suppose that somebody who posts messages on a board is always expecting that other people read their messages and that opinions will be challenged.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:42 AM
I won't take back any comments because I suppose that somebody who posts messages on a board is always expecting that other people read their messages and that opinions will be challenged.
You just indicated that I needed to be told CAPTAIN OBVIOUS stuff about Roddick.

That was unnecessary, condescending, and pure ignorance. I haven't said a bad thing about Roddick in quite sometime, and most certainly haven't done so tonight.

If you want to make ignorant comments, that's your business, but it's dissapointing. I thought you were a better post than say, Tangerine. Apparently I was mistaken!

Neely
09-04-2004, 02:43 AM
show me evidence that I made "ignorant comments"?

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:43 AM
A lot of the people who say it actually believe it and I am sorry for pointing out one of the great misconceptions on these boards, I most certainly deserved to be ranted at for 2 pages.
You probably didn't, but I already admitted that.. didn't I?

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:44 AM
show me evidence that I made "ignorant comments"?
You indicated that I needed to be told blah about Roddick. Perhaps I totally misread your comment because I'm a little excited at the moment! If that wasn't what you meant, than I apologize! Really! If that is what you meant, well then bloody Hell, it was really really wrong.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:48 AM
Okay. Whew.

I apologize. I have taken a downer and feel much better now ;) (actually, all the venting made me feel better). I just got a little overexcited and was reading too much into what everybody said, making it impossible carry on dialogue with me.

I might have returned to my normal state again.

(it's not like it's a big secret that I get a little insane during certain people's matches ;))

:kiss:

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 02:52 AM
Okay. Whew.

I apologize. I have taken a downer and feel much better now ;) (actually, all the venting made me feel better).

:kiss:

I think you take these forum opinions way too seriously...

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 02:57 AM
I think you take these forum opinions way too seriously...
I think that you just don't understand me or you wouldn't say that :)

I don't take anything too seriously, aside from the occasional tennis match ;)

I'm also a very high strung person a lot of the time.

So... it's best not to assume things about people you don't know. You usually end up being wrong ;)

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:00 AM
I think all you people are mentally handicapped. So fucking what Andy Roddick outfoxed a guy(wait, a nobody) like RALPH NADAL using other things than his serve? He is still only a serve and it shows against guys like Federer, and Agassi.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:02 AM
I think all you people are mentally handicapped. So fucking what Andy Roddick outfoxed a guy(wait, a nobody) like RALPH NADAL using other things than his serve? He is still only a serve and it shows against guys like Federer, and Agassi.

Er, don't assume that of me please...

I mean I've already said that it's his serves that keeps him in matches against top opponents...

star
09-04-2004, 03:08 AM
I'm laughing reading this thread.

If Andy were even "almost all" serve, he would be winning matched 7-6, 7-6 nearly all the time. But that isn't represenative of his scorelines. He breaks serves many, many times.

I don't think that Andy's form should be guaged from his performance against Nadal, because although talented, Nadal is still a baby, and he isn't match tough.

But still, when people still want to say that almost all of Andy's success is due to his serve, it makes me laugh. :)

I_Love_Hot_Guys
09-04-2004, 03:11 AM
But still, when people still want to say that almost all of Andy's success is due to his serve, it makes me laugh. :)
No, and his good looks too:rolleyes:.....

Obviously, getting to #1 takes a lot more than a serve, but he is not as good in other parts of his game.
He "relies" on his serve more than the others, probably less than Wayne, but still.....

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:12 AM
think of it this way.... how many matches would andy win without the serve? If you took one of federer's shots away he would have tons more to choose from.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:15 AM
I'm laughing reading this thread.

I don't think that Andy's form should be guaged from his performance against Nadal, because although talented, Nadal is still a baby, and he isn't match tough.

But still, when people still want to say that almost all of Andy's success is due to his serve, it makes me laugh. :)

He only gets to break serves consistantly due to lower-class opponents, so yeah you've got that right Sherlock. Against top players like Agassi, Federer and Henman Roddick hardly breaks them, so therefore maybe we should start using those players to gauge his performance? Or no because it doesn't suit you?

Most of Andy's success is to do with his serve - because it keeps him in matches against opponents like Hewitt and Agassi. Add to that, all the hype from pundits and Brad Gilbert about his 150mph+ serve must mean something.

Never mind you laughing at this thread, I'm certainly laughing at your post.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:17 AM
Andy Roddick is a serve.... My opinion of andy roddick. He can't volley. He can't hit a backhand. He serves and sits at the baseline. THATS ANDY RODDICK.

tangerine_dream
09-04-2004, 03:17 AM
LOL. Queen Midol's on the rag again and making personal attacks against people for no reason again, eh? She doesn't change. :lol: Don't let her bully you, FishandAndy, you can respond to any post you want whether it's directed at you or not. She's just pissed because her Dahveeed:baby: and Rafi lost tonight and she's taking it out on everyone else. Waaa.

Rafael. Damn, for a 17 year old, that kid is awesome. But Andy was more awesome; in Wimby mode tonight. Good job, Andy. :)

I_Love_Hot_Guys
09-04-2004, 03:20 AM
Andy Roddick is a serve.... My opinion of andy roddick. He can't volley. He can't hit a backhand. He serves and sits at the baseline. THATS ANDY RODDICK.
lol...well said:)......He is trash without the serve, wonder where he gets his energy from:rolleyes:.
Guess not getting laid helps too:o.

star
09-04-2004, 03:21 AM
Andy Roddick is a serve.... My opinion of andy roddick. He can't volley. He can't hit a backhand. He serves and sits at the baseline. THATS ANDY RODDICK.

Obviously, it is your opinion. And you certainly are entitled to your opinion even if it is unsupported by facts.

You'll pardon me though if I smile. :)

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:25 AM
Any andy roddick match is all the facts I need that his serve dominates his matches. Its on tape just watch one.

Honestly tho, I don't know how anyone can really get into an andy roddick match. There are so much better choices like Roger Federer making all kinds of shots. Certainly more entertaining than a serve?

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:26 AM
And really your opinion doesn't count for much, star. Your a big Andy Roddick fan so you have your blinders on.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 03:28 AM
This thread just got really stupid all of a sudden. And, for once, it wasn't my fault.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:29 AM
This thread just got really stupid all of a sudden. And, for once, it wasn't my fault.

Not really, there's too many Andy-lovers here who cannot accept other people's opinions about him being shit without his serve.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 03:30 AM
btw, Tangy... I really really like Youzhny. I have for quite sometime. And Nadal was supposed to lose in straight sets. At least by my account he was. Also... Nadal is 18.

Stop embarassing yourself, silly bear.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 03:30 AM
Not really, there's too many Andy-lovers here who cannot accept other people's opinions about him being shit without his serve.
I was actually talking about Tangerine. Every thread tends to get stupider when she posts in it :p

WyveN
09-04-2004, 03:38 AM
Not really, there's too many Andy-lovers here who cannot accept other people's opinions about him being shit without his serve.

Especially me, I fit that description perfectly :rolleyes:

WyveN
09-04-2004, 03:44 AM
Not in this thread, but some people say it. And they will continue to say it not matter how many pointless comparisons WyveN chooses to draw. Which is why Captain Obvious must die a horrible, painful death, and never be seen again. Please?

Have a look at all the idiots who arrived to say just that. Even if one of them watched that first set and saw some of Roddick's groundstrokes and changed their opinion then my comment was worth it.

And for the last time, I have already pointed out that this isn't about Nadal but about Roddick's play in the first set, he didn't win it 6-0 because Nadal couldn't keep the ball in play like that Jenkins kid.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 03:47 AM
Have a look at all the idiots who arrived to say just that. Even if one of them watched that first set and saw some of Roddick's groundstrokes and changed their opinion then my comment was worth it.

And for the last time, I have already pointed out that this isn't about Nadal but about Roddick's play in the first set, he didn't win it 6-0 because Nadal couldn't keep the ball in play like that Jenkins kid.
There is a reason that the only idiot I responded to is Tangerine! She at least is a fun idiot.

The other ones... aren't worth bickering with, so I don't.

Goenitz isn't an idiot by my book, which is why I keep responding with him/her.

Who said anything about Nadal in the first set? I haven't even seen the match :p

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:48 AM
And for the last time, I have already pointed out that this isn't about Nadal but about Roddick's play in the first set, he didn't win it 6-0 because Nadal couldn't keep the ball in play like that Jenkins kid.

Course it wasn't about Nadal to you, otherwise you'd be left in the shit if it was. I mean how many top players like Agassi and Hewitt lose to Scoville Jenkins?

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:49 AM
Match stats. Yep. Clearly, Andy was "all serve and nothing else". :lol:

Only one person here said Roddick was "all serve and nothing else." Don't refer to me.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 03:49 AM
Especially me, I fit that description perfectly :rolleyes:
Oh, admit it. You have been sporting one of those "Mrs Roddick" tshirts that GWH designed the entire day.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:51 AM
Hey moron Tangerine wasn't it already discussed that Andy DID do other things vs a lesser nobody like Nadal? Lets see those net approaches vs agassi or federer. Vs opponents clearly better than him he can't afford mistakes from going to the net or "trying something not normal for him".

WyveN
09-04-2004, 03:52 AM
He only gets to break serves consistantly due to lower-class opponents, so yeah you've got that right Sherlock. Against top players like Agassi, Federer and Henman Roddick hardly breaks them, so therefore maybe we should start using those players to gauge his performance? Or no because it doesn't suit you?


Up until the Wimbledon final Federer got broken 2 times. Roddick broke him 4 times in the final. He broke Hewitt 3 times in their Queen match.
Ok he failed to break Andre but Andre was in top form and how many players would be able to beat him that day?


Most of Andy's success is to do with his serve - because it keeps him in matches against opponents like Hewitt and Agassi. Add to that, all the hype from pundits and Brad Gilbert about his 150mph+ serve must mean something.


There is no doubt the serve is by far the most important shot in Andy's game but suggestions that he would be totally hopeless without it are wrong and he isn't "just about nothing without his serve", that applies far better to someone like Phillipoussis or Mirnyi.

Lee
09-04-2004, 03:52 AM
Match stats. Yep. Clearly, Andy was "all serve and nothing else". :lol:

Can't figure out how the stat prove what's discuss here :confused:

55% receiving points won doesn't prove he returned well.

28 winners doesn't prove he returned well.

I do not approve or disapprove the claim that 'Andy was all serve and nothing else' but the stat doesn't prove anything one way or another.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:55 AM
yes its sad but Nadal is not in roddicks league. So andy did other things. Understand that mentally handicapped(with blinders on, mind you) RODDICK FAN?

WyveN
09-04-2004, 03:56 AM
Oh, admit it. You have been sporting one of those "Mrs Roddick" tshirts that GWH designed the entire day.

Matches well with my duck glasses from the other thread.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 03:59 AM
Up until the Wimbledon final Federer got broken 2 times. Roddick broke him 4 times in the final. He broke Hewitt 3 times in their Queen match.
Ok he failed to break Andre but Andre was in top form and how many players would be able to beat him that day?

There is no doubt the serve is by far the most important shot in Andy's game but suggestions that he would be totally hopeless without it are wrong and he isn't "just about nothing without his serve", that applies far better to someone like Phillipoussis.

Any top player's serves can be broken by any decent player. You're saying it in a tone as if Andy Roddick is the only person who can break Hewitt and Federer...well believe or not other players have done it too. Agassi was on top form that day. And Andy's serve IS what kept him in that match. Without it? Agassi would've ran over him.

And the amount of break points and set points Andy has saved because of his serve....just like the Schalken match at Wimbledon.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:03 AM
Oh hi, gbpb-whatever. Nice to see you have your new troll screen name up and running. :lol:

BTW, those match facts were more for Goenitz's benefit, who's convinced that Roddick all serve and nothing else.

Nadal a "lesser nobody"? :haha: Thanks for discrediting yourself and saving me the trouble. :)

Priceless, coming from a Andy Roddick lover.

BTW I didn't say Andy was "all serve and nothing else". I said it "almost" is. There is a difference. Get your facts right before you post, dumbo.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:05 AM
Any top player's serves can be broken by any decent player.


You changed your tune fast. First you say Roddick can't break the serves of Hewitt and Federer yet now you claim they can be broken by any decent player?
Someone who is "shit without his serve" is your description of a decent player?



You're saying it in a tone as if Andy Roddick is the only person who can break Hewitt and Federer...well believe or not other players have done it too.

Not to many could break Federer at Wimbledon, got broken a total of 2 times over a period of 2 weeks yet Roddick breaks him 4 times in the final. Did he use his serve to break serve?

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:12 AM
You changed your tune fast. First you say Roddick can't break the serves of Hewitt and Federer yet now you claim they can be broken by any decent player?
Someone who is "shit without his serve" is your description of a decent player?

Not to many could break Federer at Wimbledon, got broken a total of 2 times over a period of 2 weeks yet Roddick breaks him 4 times in the final. Did he use his serve to break serve?

My comment about Roddick "can't break the serves of Hewitt and Federer" was pure exaggeration, and besides I did NOT actually say Andy was "unable to break the serves of Hewitt and Federer" did I?

All I ever hear about Andy Roddick is his serve. And you can't disagree with the fact that his serve has got him to where he is today. Without, who the fuck knows...

Andy broke Roger the most times in the Wimbledon final yes. Imagine that match with Andy without his big serve. Yep indeed, rather one-sided.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:15 AM
Andy broke Roger the most times in the Wimbledon final yes. Imagine that match with Andy without his big serve. Yep indeed, rather one-sided.

This went over my head.

Q. Why did Andy break Roger the most times in the Wimbledon final?

A. Imagine Andy without his big serve.

Did I miss something?

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:16 AM
You know how I know Andy Roddick is all serve....

1. WHen the point goes more than 3 or 4 strokes he usually does not get the point.
2. No backhand.
3. No volleying.
4. If good returners play him like agassi or federer he will lose.
5. He has the most aces.
6. He plays TONS OF TIEBREAKS.(this proves hes not good at breaking other peoples serve)
7. On the front page of atptennis.com it says Roddicks hits 152... This guy tries to make his serve faster and faster and better and better. He hardly shows any improvement to other portions of his game(or lackthereof)

and really is saying he is all serve A bad comment? It works for him and he is winning against mostly everyone with it except a few people like federer, agassi, and henman.. I really think tho that there are not enough good returners to handle roddick's serve.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:19 AM
This went over my head.

Q. Why did Andy break Roger the most times in the Wimbledon final?

A. Imagine Andy without his big serve.

Did I miss something?

When I said "Imagine Andy without his big serve" I was refering about the whole match, not about his ability to break. I did put a full stop/period after 'yes' you know.

And you can't disagree with the fact that his serve has got him to where he is today. Without, who the fuck knows...

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:20 AM
And Andy's serve IS what kept him in that match. Without it? Agassi would've ran over him.

This point is not valid simply because it took Andy time to develop his serve. If he didn't have his serve, meaning he didn't develop his serve, he would have developed some other weapons. Simple as that.

If Andy didn't have his serve, maybe he would have the best forehand in men's tennis, or his volleys are a lot more refined, dangerous backhand. When you make such a hypothetical statement, you can have endless possibilities.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:21 AM
It takes talent to develop a backhand/volleying ability. He clearly is not talented and does not have a flair for tennis. Hes in great shape physically tho and it shows by all his power....similar to the williams sisters.

tangerine_dream
09-04-2004, 04:21 AM
Priceless, coming from a Andy Roddick lover.


Thanks for dodging the issue entirely but it won't get you off the hook. It's hard to come up with a counter-argument when you don't really have one, isn't it?

BTW I didn't say Andy was "all serve and nothing else". I said it "almost" is. There is a difference. Get your facts right before you post, dumbo.

You have said:

post #62: "I mean I've already said that it's his serves that keeps him in matches against top opponents..."

post #66: "Most of Andy's success is to do with his serve - because it keeps him in matches against opponents like Hewitt and Agassi."

But you contradict yourself when you say this:

post #50: "And we all know that when Roddick faces a world-class opponent like Agassi it's his serve that keeps him in the match. *cough*Agassi-Cincinatti*cough*

So which is it, waffle-man? Either Andy is "shit" or Agassi is "shit". But then, your idea of a "shit" player is someone like Nadal. So that right away tells me that *you're* shit. :o

post #74: "Not really, there's too many Andy-lovers here who cannot accept other people's opinions about him being shit without his serve."

I suppose Agassi would be shit without his returns, and Henman would be shit without his volleys. :rolleyes:

BTW, your "opinion" means nothing. The match facts and Roddick's career stats speak for themselves. Acquaint yourself with them.

More rope for your noose?

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:23 AM
You gotta be joking if you tell me his backhand and volleys haven't improved over the last year. And who knows how much more he can improve in those areas. Sure, right now, his volleys and backhand is not that dangerous, but if you take away his serve, maybe they would have been much more developed.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:24 AM
no if you took away his serve he would be in the 300s. I love how he volleys into the net..... Its improved so much.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:25 AM
Thanks for that comment fisher. I am sure we all know how Andy's game would be if he couldn't serve... :rolleyes:

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:26 AM
When I said "Imagine Andy without his big serve" I was refering about the whole match, not about his ability to break. I did put a full stop/period after 'yes' you know.


That explains everything, now it is all so clear!
That full stop gave me all the answers and turned your post from garbage into brilliance.


And you can't disagree with the fact that his serve has got him to where he is today. Without, who the fuck knows...[/B]

Read Lceh's post, I agree with it totally. I don't see what point you are trying to make when you say his serve got him to where he is today.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:27 AM
and really... like i said before he wouldnt have a good backhand/volley's because he has no flair for tennis.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:28 AM
His flair is being powerful... Him and the Williams sisters are VERY SIMILAR in so many ways.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:29 AM
and really is saying he is all serve A bad comment? It works for him and he is winning against mostly everyone with it except a few people like federer, agassi, and henman.. I really think tho that there are not enough good returners to handle roddick's serve.

I don't know why I bother but I will, can you explain why Karlovic is not having the success that Roddick is?

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:30 AM
because Andy wins tiebreaks. simple.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:30 AM
You are judging his game with what he has now (backhand and volleys), takes away the most important element of his game, and yet you still think other parts of his game wouldn't improve? Who knows how his game would have developed IF he couldn't serve.

You are making assumptions based on what he has now in a hypothetical situation. Things just don't work that way. Maybe he would have been a more powerful version of Hewitt, who knows.

Deboogle!.
09-04-2004, 04:31 AM
I just popped up a big batch of extra buttery popcorn. Anyone want some?

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:32 AM
he wouldn't be highly ranked. He would be a nobody. Andy has power, not technique.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 04:35 AM
This thread was so much better when I was still in it ranting and raving about... whatever it is that I was going on about :confused:

Hmmm. Bring back Tangerine!

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:37 AM
So which is it, waffle-man? Either Andy is "shit" or Agassi is "shit". But then, your idea of a "shit" player is someone like Nadal. So that right away tells me that *you're* shit. :o

Idiot. I didn't assume Nadal was "shit". I just assumed he wasn't in the same level as Roddick/Hewitt/Agassi. You're taking it that far just to spite/prove me wrong which you clearly aren't.


I suppose Agassi would be shit without his returns, and Henman would be shit without his volleys. :rolleyes:

Everyone likes to see a player with more than just a dominating big serve. Roddick has some good strokes, but c'mon it's his serve that excells the most. Serves can be trained, but the natural instinct cannot, as you can see in Mr. Ivanisevic. Also you cannot train to be taller in height (hint, HINT). So you either have it or you don't. RETURNS and VOLLEYS can be learnt and perfected.


BTW, your "opinion" means nothing. The match facts and Roddick's career stats speak for themselves. Acquaint yourself with them.

No I actually know what I'm talking about. You are merely just an Andy Roddick lover. My opinion means exactly what I say. And you can print it and nail it right onto your oversized forehead.


More rope for your noose?

Your sad attempt at being witty now sounds rather stupid.

And last but not least I'll say it again for all you thickos who refuse to get this into your heads:

And you can't disagree with the fact that his serve has got him to where he is today. Without, who the fuck knows...

Print it and remember it.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:37 AM
Rebecca you are pathetic you have an abnormal obsession for that person(uh animal) tangerine_dream.... You really need help...

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:38 AM
I don't see what point you are trying to make when you say his serve got him to where he is today.

Of course, you'll avoid anything that conflicts with your pride.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:40 AM
tangerine_dream.... You really need help...

I doubt it. More like taking down 100 pegs or so.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:42 AM
uh.... i was saying and recommending that rebecca get some help because she has an obsession with tangerine.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:44 AM
Of course, you'll avoid anything that conflicts with your pride.

I have given you facts, you have ignored most of them or replied with some garbage.

"Roddick wouldnt be here without his serve" tells me nothing. The issue in this thread has been that Roddick's game is far more then just his serve, something that cant be said about Karlovic.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:45 AM
I told you already he wins tiebreaks. Thats why he is more successful than poor lil Karlovic. He gets the job done in tie breaks. END OF STORY.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 04:47 AM
uh.... i was saying and recommending that rebecca get some help because she has an obsession with tangerine.
Its true. I want to have her babies. She's so fascinating.

Bring back tangerine!

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:48 AM
I told you already he wins tiebreaks. Thats why he is more successful than poor lil Karlovic. He gets the job done in tie breaks. END OF STORY.

Andy plays much less tiebreaks than Ivo. Ivo has played around 49-50 tiebreaks, Andy played around 30, and Andy played about doubled Ivo's number of matches.

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:48 AM
"Roddick wouldnt be here without his serve" tells me nothing. The issue in this thread has been that Roddick's game is far more then just his serve, something that cant be said about Karlovic.

No you're quoting made-up shit I didn't actually say. I said "without, who the fuck knows" - which could mean anything.

At least there's something I totally agree with you on, and that's Ivo Karlovic. Now he IS definietly a pure one-move-wonder.

Come to think of it, Dick Norman is also another one.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:51 AM
30 is a lot know? Noone is disputing Ivo. We all know he is pretty much all serve. You are comparing extreme(ivo) to semi-extreme(roddick).... They both rely heavily on the serve.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:53 AM
he has played around 70 matches, so that is about 1 tiebreak won per every 2 matches. And each match is either best of 3 or best of 5, so that means approximately he wins around 1/5 to 1/6 of his sets in tiebreaks. That's not too much.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:56 AM
30 is still a large number even tho you try to dwindle it down..... and probably its up with the most tie breaks.

heya
09-04-2004, 04:56 AM
Ignorant Troll alert

WyveN
09-04-2004, 04:58 AM
No you're quoting made-up shit I didn't actually say. I said "without, who the fuck knows" - which could mean anything.


Exactly, could mean anything so I didnt understand why your brought it up.


At least there's something I totally agree with you on, and that's Ivo Karlovic. Now he IS definietly a pure one-move-wonder.


We agree then, at least on this.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:58 AM
useless moron alert

Goenitz_196
09-04-2004, 04:59 AM
We agree then, at least on this.

What about Dick Norman? :)

LCeh
09-04-2004, 04:59 AM
30 is still a large number even tho you try to dwindle it down..... and probably its up with the most tie breaks.

Yup, 30 is a pretty big number, but that doesn't mean anything. It simply dismisses your point that "I told you already he wins tiebreaks. Thats why he is more successful than poor lil Karlovic. He gets the job done in tie breaks.", because he only wins around 1/5 to 1/6 of his sets in tiebreaks.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 05:01 AM
Ignorant Troll alert
Heya :hearts:

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:01 AM
more like 1/3 since most matches except slams are 3 SETS

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:05 AM
No, 30/70 is lower than 0.5, and even the best of 3 matches you have to win at least 2 sets, so divide 30/70 by 2, and then take into account of the slams and the extra sets and you get 1/5 to 1/6.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:07 AM
No your just using math in a sleezy way to support you. Put it this way everytime roddick has a match he has a 43% chance of hitting a tiebreak in one of the 2/3 sets.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:10 AM
Yup, and he would only be able to win 1 of the 3 sets with the tiebreak, so that means he wins around 14% of his sets, which is even lower than my 1/6, and that is assuming that he wins all his tiebreaks and no slam matches.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 05:11 AM
:banana:

Havok
09-04-2004, 05:12 AM
Holy shit this thread.:tape:

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:12 AM
and how do we know its a 3 setter? it could go in 2. 28% send me a link to the tiebreaks stats so i know where u got the 30 from.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:14 AM
Because you said he wins his sets with tiebreaks, which means he will only win the tiebreak he has, which is only a set, which means it will go to 3 sets.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:16 AM
he can't win 2 straight tie breaks? please.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:17 AM
Then your number at 43% percent chance of a tiebreak in each match is wrong.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:19 AM
whatever show me where u got the stats on the tiebreaks

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:21 AM
I have problem with the link now, but I found it here:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=M&action=activity&season=2004&playerid=ROA001

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:22 AM
if my counting is not off thats 37.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:23 AM
Actually, try this one:

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=M&action=players&playerid=ROA001

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:24 AM
We are only looking at the tiebreaks he won, for the benefit of your argument, and that's 30.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:25 AM
hes 30-8

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:26 AM
Yup, that's the correct number.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:26 AM
he plays tons of tiebreaks and has a really nice record with them end of story. When you were comparing to ivo's 70 or whatever i bet you were just looking at what he won? riiiight. Thats 38... just shows how he cant break serve.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:28 AM
he plays tons of tiebreaks and has a really nice record with them end of story. When you were comparing to ivo's 70 or whatever i bet you were just looking at what he won? riiiight. Thats 38... just shows how he cant break serve.

Thanks for the great conclusion after all those number analysing... :haha:

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:29 AM
235-75 and 107-57 in tie breaks. wow 50% of his matches have ended in a tie break. So as you can see hes a lame fuck who can't break serve.. The guy has no talent, no technique just power.

LCeh
09-04-2004, 05:32 AM
His return game, backhand and volleys at the beginning of his career obviously aren't as developed as it is now, so using career stats don't say much.

Deboogle!.
09-04-2004, 05:32 AM
ok once and for all. Andy has played APPROXIMATELY 185 sets of tennis (give or take a couple either way, I wasn't gonna count again).

He has lost 27 of those sets. That means 8/27 of the sets he has lost have been in tiebreaks. That's about 30% of his sets LOST that he LOST in tiebreaks

that leaves him having won about 158 sets of tennis through today. 30 of those have been in tiebreaks, which rounds to about 20%.

:yawn: that was way too much math for my liking.

¿esquímaux?
09-04-2004, 05:37 AM
Roddick's serve has been absolutely killer in these opening matches. Should Roddick and Federer meet, I would be EXTREMELY interested in seeing how Roger handles Andy's serve.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:39 AM
like always he will bunt it back and make roddick run.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 05:41 AM
god Ivo tops the list with 116.667% chance of tiebreaks in in any one of the 3 sets of a match.

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 07:15 AM
From what I could tell from the 4 games of the match that TSN actually decided to show, the best part of the match was handshake :D

heya
09-04-2004, 07:31 AM
:tears: Give Karlovic credit. He let God Hewitt double fault every point.

No one's as clever as Hewitt, Henman, Federer and Agassi.
Other players should call themselves losers because they're taller, bigger, out of shape & have inferior coaching.

Fast servers served exactly the same way when they were kids.
Why did Roddick win 100+ matches by the time he was 10 years old?:scratch:
It's baffling. Why did a fast server, with little else, steal a slam & other meaningless titles? :scared:

Who's the other guy across the net? Why isn't he handing Roddick a 6-0 beating?
Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Henman & Hewitt know what it's like to lose to a younger player.
Surely, Roddick must endure such terrible shame all the time.

G O
09-04-2004, 07:40 AM
Roddick's serve has been absolutely killer in these opening matches. Should Roddick and Federer meet, I would be EXTREMELY interested in seeing how Roger handles Andy's serve.


Should Andy get there Federer will lose. Andy's power is just too much. If it weren't for the rain delays he'd be Wimbledon champ I believe. Roger is and will always be the most talented, but Andy is closing the gap on Roger. I think If Roger doesn't get a coach soon Andy will start to sneak in more than a win.

Leo
09-04-2004, 07:54 AM
Roddick is yet to prove to me that he can ever beat Federer on a consistent basis. Although there is a good chance that he would beat Federer if they were to meet in the finals next weekend, especially since Roddick has "home court advantage" and feeds of the support greatly. And Roddick did prove at Wimbledon that he can break Federer's serve multiple times in a match so perhaps he is slightly narrowing the gap.

As for this match, I think Roddick played well, but not great. His first serve percentage was too low and his backhand wasn't always holding up in the baseline rallies. Nadal certainly should have won that third set. Still, a good effort by him to make it somewhat of a contest after that first set blowout.

G O
09-04-2004, 07:57 AM
I agree Leo. Andy will sneak in more than a win. But Roger win most of them by far. I just thought people around here should know that Andy is getting better and Roger eh....kinda isn't. Kinda hard when your already that good though.

J. Corwin
09-04-2004, 08:14 AM
LOL @ people who grumble about Roddick's serve and say that he's shit without a serve. Why not take away everyone's serve then?....OH WAIT...NOBODY WOULD START THE DAMN POINT!

Daniel
09-04-2004, 08:27 AM
Nadal :sad:

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 08:42 AM
LOL @ people who grumble about Roddick's serve and say that he's shit without a serve. Why not take away everyone's serve then?....OH WAIT...NOBODY WOULD START THE DAMN POINT!
I laugh both at the people who grumble about it AND the people who act as if there isn't some truth in the matter.

So please... continue.

And please... bring back Tangerine.

J. Corwin
09-04-2004, 08:46 AM
I laugh both at the people who grumble about it AND the people who act as if there isn't some truth in the matter.

So please... continue.

And please... bring back Tangerine.

Good for you..and if you're talking/referring to me..then you're very wrong. I don't think Andy's "shit" without his serve. Have fun with your "some truth".

Chloe le Bopper
09-04-2004, 09:15 AM
Good for you..and if you're talking/referring to me..then you're very wrong. I don't think Andy's "shit" without his serve. Have fun with your "some truth".
I never said that he was "shit" without his serve. Did I? Maybe instead of assuming what I meant you should.... ask? :confused: Perhaps you missed the part earlier in the thread where I acted like a big asshole doing the same thing. It's not very becoming on anybody :devil:

HEE.

Continue ;)

WyveN
09-04-2004, 09:38 AM
I just thought people around here should know that Andy is getting better and Roger eh....kinda isn't.

I am glad we have your expert opinion on the matter. Now all we need is Tangerine's and Heya's analysis.

Its interesting how people say that Roger isn't improving when his results this year are significantly better then last year? Either roger improved or the rest of the field slumped.
I will go with the field slumping.

UseTheSearchTool
09-04-2004, 09:44 AM
Roddick well he was too good and this is not surprising, as for him being all serve, well we have seen what he is like when he plays on a surface that neutralises the serve, when he has to rely on other aspects of his game, not the best for him, but he always plays well at the US Open.

That was a great handshake between Nadal and Roddick. :)

J. Corwin
09-04-2004, 09:54 AM
I never said that he was "shit" without his serve. Did I? Maybe instead of assuming what I meant you should.... ask? :confused: Perhaps you missed the part earlier in the thread where I acted like a big asshole doing the same thing. It's not very becoming on anybody :devil:

HEE.

Continue ;)

Hence...notice the "if" in my post. ;) I didn't assume anything.

:)

asotgod
09-04-2004, 10:57 AM
Good match played by Roddick, especially in the first set. Nadal's kind of game and shot selections played into Roddick's hand. Nadal plays a spin-based game. However, power neutralises spins easily and Roddick's game plan was to force Nadal to play the ball to his forehand so he can flatten them. Even the balls Nadal sent to Roddick's backhand, Roddick's whole aim was to get it back to the forehand, and that's why many stupid shots Nadal hit to the center of the court, Roddick easily stepped over and flattened them, hence putting Nadal on the defensive. Looking at the stats though, Roddick's % were in the 60s which can be a little deceiving, although I was not overly impressed with the stats since he only lost 7 games. Nadal actually won about 32% of points on Roddick's serves. This just shows that stats can at times be deceiving because what matters most is who won the more crucial points.

Nadal's serve is not a weapon at all. It definitely could improve. Most of Roddick's second serves were almost as fast, if not faster than Nadal's first serves.

A couple of opinions about some previous posts though:

1. Other aspects of Roddick's game has improved no doubt, but that still does not change the fact that Roddick is very dependent on his serve. Most of Roddick's shots, especially the 1-2, 1-2-3 combination shots are set up by his serve. Most times, they are not combos, there are simply aces or unreturnable. But looking at top players, most of their shots also are set up by their serves, be it based on placement, speed or both.

2. This, however, does not give enough credit to the fact that Roddick has an improved return game and can hit his backhand well enough to get himself to stay in or, a few times, control the points. He can also slice well enough. At the same time, when a player has a good or great hold game, the player is usually more relaxed on his or her return games. So, sometimes it doesn't mean they are extraordinary returners, it may just mean they are able to take more chances on their opponent's game because of the pressure their own service games put on their opponents. Roddick definitely returned well, but at times, it seems Nadal made Roddick seem like a much better returner than he actually is.

3. Roddick's court sense has improved as well. (This is not something which just happened or else he wont be #2 in the world.) It's very difficult to hit a winner of Roddick also. And Roddick has improved his abilities to think through his match and use his weapons to put himself at an advantage. Looking at the Roddick/Nadal match, on the AD-side, most of Roddick's kick serves were directed out-wide to Nadal's forehand, which were very difficult for him to handle or put into the court in such a way that he is at least neutral in the point. Roddick serve and volleyed a lot through this process. Credit that to Roddick's thinking abilities, improved mental state and his competitiveness to stay at the top of the game, whatsoever may be required.

3. Anybody can break anybody. The fact that Roddick broke Federer quite a number of times in Wimbledon does not make Roddick a better returner than say Nalbandian or Hewitt. It was all because Federer's spin were easily neutralized by Roddick's power, especially in the first set. Secondly, Roddick's service games went a little fast, initially, thus putting pressure on Federer to hold. Most, if not all players, know that being a break down against Roddick, most likely, is the end of a set. That alone puts pressure on other players. That's why Roddick's serve is so important, although it's not his fault he has such a weapon.

In conclusion, Nadal was expected to provide a stern test for Roddick but did not. Whatsoever the explanation of his failure to do so, Roddick deserves credit for doing what he had to do. I am no Roddick fan, but the truth is that he implemented his gameplan. Simple!

G O
09-04-2004, 11:12 AM
Thus the "eh" and the word "kinda", also known as "kind of".

1. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.

3. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.

I just thought I'd help you out a little since your so interested in my opinion and are having trouble understanding me lately.

Yes yes wyvern, Roger's results have risen. His confidence has turned the corner sinse previous years, but wyvern, what I think we're talking about here is improvement not with so much the mental side of the game, but the technical side. Here's a little list I made for you.

1. Since last year Roddick has made vast improvements technically. Andy's mobility has greatly improved, and good moblility means getting to net quicker where he can showcase his improved net game.

2. On the return game you'll no longer see him backed up on the baseline as was the case a year ago. Brad and Andy have been working hard on being more aggressive on second serves. We saw that at Wimbledon this year.

3. I couldn't tell last years serve average, but I think it would be a safe bet that it's increased a bit since. He's also hitting the corners better than he was about this time a year ago.

4. Where are we..Oh yeah..groundstrokes. He can open up the court with his forehand better than a year ago, and he's hitting it harder more consistantly. Shot for shot he's got the biggest forehand in tennis. On the backhand side opponents are finding harder to pick on him due to the added power and accuracy. Also his slice is more consistant and deeper struck than a year ago. All in all he's a much better player.

Now Roger hasn't changed anything, he's still coachless and still hits the most ridiculous shots in the world. Kinda (aka kind of) difficult when your hangin around the ceiling. I'll say it again, his increased numbers are the result of confidence not shot making or strategy.


Every player improves with something somewhere, that goes without saying. Now can we move beyond the obvious or would you prefer to scrutinize my every word?

WyveN
09-04-2004, 11:13 AM
Great post.

asotgod
09-04-2004, 11:13 AM
Its interesting how people say that Roger isn't improving when his results this year are significantly better then last year? Either roger improved or the rest of the field slumped.
I will go with the field slumping.


WyveN,

I guess you are being sarcastic here or maybe you are right. Not sure. But, I will like to think Roger has improved on his consistency in matches. I dont think the field is slumping, although there are quite a number of people with injuries or head problems. :)

G O
09-04-2004, 11:25 AM
Great post.


That's your defense? The classic "I don't care" tactic. :rolleyes:


"I can't defend myself....so....Idontcare"!



You know I'm right wyvern. Stay away those who don't want to get burned :devil:



:wavey:

WyveN
09-04-2004, 11:27 AM
Now Roger hasn't changed anything, he's still coachless and still hits the most ridiculous shots in the world. Kinda (aka kind of) difficult when your hangin around the ceiling. I'll say it again, his increased numbers are the result of confidence not shot making or strategy.


I disagree.
While Roger is certainly high in confidence, a large reason for his success this year has been an improvement in strategy. Knowing which shot to hit and when to hit it, knowing when to slice, when to hit through the backhand and when to go for a clean winner.

Roger's volleys can also certainly improve and I think they will once he gets the confidence to go into the net more often, he volleyed better at Wimbledon 2003 then he has in 2004.

amethyst
09-04-2004, 11:29 AM
asotgod, it´s great to see somebody manages to write a serious and well-balanced post about Roddick between all this crap that was written here! Thank you :worship:

G O
09-04-2004, 11:36 AM
I disagree.
While Roger is certainly high in confidence, a large reason for his success this year has been an improvement in strategy. Knowing which shot to hit and when to hit it, knowing when to slice, when to hit through the backhand and when to go for a clean winner.

Roger's volleys can also certainly improve and I think they will once he gets the confidence to go into the net more often, he volleyed better at Wimbledon 2003 then he has in 2004.



But I would say to you that him knowing which shot to hit....Is due in larger part to his level of confidence. When his confidence is low he makes mental errors and loses strategic direction in a match.

Your right about his volleys. But we can scrutinize all day. It's pretty clear whos made the most gains with in the last year.

It's like talking to a lawyer :)

G O
09-04-2004, 11:41 AM
asotgod, it´s great to see somebody manages to write a serious and well-balanced post about Roddick between all this crap that was written here! Thank you :worship:


So what I wrote was crap? I try to be serious for once and it still gets called crap. I give up.

WyveN
09-04-2004, 12:46 PM
Your right about his volleys. But we can scrutinize all day. It's pretty clear whos made the most gains with in the last year.


It is difficult to say that Roddick has made the most gains within the last year since so far his US hardcourt season has been inferior to that of 12 months ago especially if he doesn't at the very least make the final at the US open.
For example I think Roddick's movement around the court was better last year.
Having said that Roddick has probably made the most improvement to his game within the last 2 years, whether those improvements will allow him to be competetive with Federer remains to be seen.

Blaze
09-04-2004, 12:49 PM
I will like to disagree with G O and say that Roger has improved.
Developing ones confidence and consistency is so important in sports today and he has managed to do that. He has also learn to drive through his backhand more than he used to do. It may not be as consistent as other backhand on tour but atleast he is not slicing all the time.

I also find it hypocrical that some posters(not you in particular, G O) and socalled well known media personalities are insinuating that Federer is not improving because he is not dominating in matches that he should dominate. It is kind of had for someone with Federer kind of game to always be 100% focus through a long match. Eventhough I don't appreciate him being lackadaisical during his matches, it is understandable cause he is only human.

The other point that really infuriates me is the fact that people are now trying to imply that Federer would have lost in this year wimbledon had it not being for the rain delays. American commentators has also done their best to let everyone know that his least comfortable surface is hardcourts, yet he has managed to win two masters on them, something no other top player has done this year.

Now what remains a mistery to me is why people keep suggesting that Federer will get blown away at Flushing Meadow by Roddick's power ( Note: Roddick can beat Federer on any given day and vice versa) because all the intangibles are in Roddick favour, the most mentioned being the surface, current state both players are playing in, and crowd,and yet people are willing to forget that less that two months ago, all these things were working against Federer yet he still prevail and convincingly.

In conclusion, I'm trying to say that Federer has improve in subtle areas that people seem to ignore and that no one should use the surface or other intangibles to excuse Roddick's losses to Federer and it also should not be used as a factor if Roddick happens to defeat Federer.

speedracer
09-04-2004, 01:35 PM
Federer's improvements will never be eye popping because he is a very advanced player as of today( and yesterday). There's almost nothing to teach technically.

jole
09-04-2004, 02:25 PM
Dick Norman rules the world. That is all.

Tennis Fool
09-04-2004, 02:31 PM
I don't understand the point of this thread.

Nearly 200 posts and no WWIII nastiness :(

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 03:56 PM
How is Roddick getting BETTER? He won 4 summer hardcourt titles last year. This year on the summer hard courts he only won the RCA Championships and big fucking deal he had no opponent to trouble him. I say Roddick will get worse and worse because the players will after time be able to return his serve better.

Roddick was not the god on hardcourts that he was last year....

Shy
09-04-2004, 04:01 PM
In conclusion, I'm trying to say that Federer has improve in subtle areas that people seem to ignore and that no one should use the surface or other intangibles to excuse Roddick's losses to Federer and it also should not be used as a factor if Roddick happens to defeat Federer.
I think that people can not compare on how much Roger and Andy improve.We are going to see more improvment from Andy since his weekness is a little more visible than Roger.

star
09-04-2004, 04:11 PM
I agree with WyverN that Roddick isn't moving as well as he did last year. I think he needs to be leaner and that will help his movement. But Roddick's backhand has improved quite a bit. I've seen him hit running backhanded passing shots, and that's not something he could have done two years ago. His backhand has improved in general.

Federer is certainly sleeker this year, and that is nice to see. I also agree with the poster who said that Federer's confidence is now one of his greatest assets. Federer in past years talked a great deal about his selbstvertrauen and in nearly every loss that word came up as part of the explanation. I think he has found that inner confidence now and it seems to shine forth from him. He simply looks different when he walks on the court.

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:24 PM
The decoturf II stuff is andy's best surface and he's not winning anything special. Federer's is a god on grass and has a perfect record on it.

star
09-04-2004, 04:41 PM
I hope you weren't suggesting that anyone here was arguing about whether Andy was a better player than Federer.

Btw. Thanks for your unique analysis of statistics. I was :lol:

fisher12190
09-04-2004, 04:57 PM
No, I was entailing that Federer is light years better than Roddick would dream to be.

sweetiepiedoll
08-15-2005, 08:52 PM
To the thread starter,

How many tournaments has Jenkins won this year (2005)?
How many tournaments has Nadal won this year?

Let me know the answers when you have some time to think about them????

cleverdutchclogs
08-15-2005, 09:02 PM
What's "this year" got to do with the price of fish?

This post was started on September 4 LAST YEAR!

Which kind of makes it a bit irrelevant now!

vincayou
08-15-2005, 09:22 PM
To the thread starter,

How many tournaments has Jenkins won this year (2005)?
How many tournaments has Nadal won this year?

Let me know the answers when you have some time to think about them????

Given that thread starter has only posted 13 times, I doubt you'll get an answer. Are you related to chloe? :p