If Nalbandian had beat Roddick at 03 USO, would Andy be the best to never win a slam? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Nalbandian had beat Roddick at 03 USO, would Andy be the best to never win a slam?

2003
10-31-2010, 11:25 AM
My intention is not to open up a can of worms over which one slam wonder in history would be the most criteriad to have never one a slam had they not taken their sole opportunity. The tennis world does not operate on what ifs.

But having said that, few players were ever as close to not winning their sole slam as Roddick was. When you consider the grander picture, he was on the good side of arguably the biggest GS choke of that entire decade. He also got fortuitous luck beyond his control, in the spectator yelling out and distracting Nalbandian, and in a serious of line calls, that in the post hawk eye world, could have turned that match into a different spectical.

When you take into consideration all that, and how much shit Andy Murray gets for having not won a slam, Roddick would be getting it tenfold from the American press. He has reached many GS finals, lost early in slams to lesser players much like Murray has over the years. Infact the two are very similar in their paths. Murray is much younger but showing the same trends.

People think that Murray is well in the top 10 already, or certainly will be soon if he keeps up his non slam achievements, of the best open era players to never win a slam.

So surely Roddick would be well in the top 5? Hardly on talent alone, although with the biggest serve in tennis at his peak, you would have picked him for a Wimbledon or another hardcourt slam for sure.

I just think its very interesting because had Roddick lost that match to Burgerbandian, he would be slamless. Can you imagine how much he would get for that, given how much crap the British press give Murray? Granted it would have only been since AO 2003 since an American had triumphed at US Open, and 2002 since the US Open, but still. I would love (or hate) to see what that pressure would do to Andy. It owuld make all those Wimbledon losses to Federer that much harder to stomach. Anyone agree?

Action Jackson
10-31-2010, 11:30 AM
Not even close.

samanosuke
10-31-2010, 11:33 AM
Maybe if you are including just results , but overall no chance

ApproachShot
10-31-2010, 11:33 AM
I haven't done the maths but if Nalbandian beat Roddick at the USO, would Federer have pipped Roddick to year end number 1? The reason why I ask is because the #1 ranking is one big point in Roddick's favour when thinking about the above question.

Even still, I think Roddick's accomplishments (including ATP ranking peak and consistency, Davis Cup success and reaching 3 other Grand Slam finals) are such that he would have deserved to be near the top of the list.

Topspindoctor
10-31-2010, 11:33 AM
They are about equal, I'd say. Roddick reached more finals, but he's older. Both Murray and Roddick had their tennis careers crushed by Federer. He literally ripped out their hearts and squeezed them till they stopped beating. The feeling of utter hopelessness and despair on Roddick's face at Wimbledon 2009 presentation and Murray's tears at AO is a testament to that.

emotion
10-31-2010, 12:37 PM
They are about equal, I'd say. Roddick reached more finals, but he's older. Both Murray and Roddick had their tennis careers crushed by Federer. He literally ripped out their hearts and squeezed them till they stopped beating. The feeling of utter hopelessness and despair on Roddick's face at Wimbledon 2009 presentation and Murray's tears at AO is a testament to that.

in that case, woah

Certinfy
10-31-2010, 12:50 PM
Actually I believe Roddick would of still won a GS.

dombrfc
10-31-2010, 01:08 PM
They are about equal, I'd say. Roddick reached more finals, but he's older. Both Murray and Roddick had their tennis careers crushed by Federer. He literally ripped out their hearts and squeezed them till they stopped beating. The feeling of utter hopelessness and despair on Roddick's face at Wimbledon 2009 presentation and Murray's tears at AO is a testament to that.

:worship::worship::worship:

bluefork
10-31-2010, 02:06 PM
They are about equal, I'd say. Roddick reached more finals, but he's older. Both Murray and Roddick had their tennis careers crushed by Federer. He literally ripped out their hearts and squeezed them till they stopped beating. The feeling of utter hopelessness and despair on Roddick's face at Wimbledon 2009 presentation and Murray's tears at AO is a testament to that.

Any pics?

mystic ice cube
10-31-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm inclined to go along with that, so I think he would be close to it.

Silver.
10-31-2010, 02:22 PM
IMO, yes. His defeat at Wimbledon 09 was just heartbreaking :sad::sad:

jrm
10-31-2010, 03:04 PM
That was soooo his match and then it would have been easy peasy against Ferrero in the final!

Leo
10-31-2010, 05:05 PM
He'd definitely be up there with the likes of Mecir, Rios, Haas, others.

Leo
10-31-2010, 05:06 PM
That was soooo his match and then it would have been easy peasy against Ferrero in the final!

No way, Ferrero would have faired much much better against Nalby than against Roddick. Spaniard probably would have had the mental edge.

shiaben
10-31-2010, 06:15 PM
They are about equal, I'd say. Roddick reached more finals, but he's older. Both Murray and Roddick had their tennis careers crushed by Federer. He literally ripped out their hearts and squeezed them till they stopped beating. The feeling of utter hopelessness and despair on Roddick's face at Wimbledon 2009 presentation and Murray's tears at AO is a testament to that.

You make a great comparison. I applaud you for that. But there's only 1 major difference. Andy Murray is MUCH MUCH younger. While he was demoralized for the rest of 2010 after the Federer defeat. He can always come back with a positive note, simply because Murray knows, he's got another 10 years left in his career. While Roddick probably tops has 3-4 years left in his tank. So with Roddick, his time is almost over. At the most he can probably pick up 1 slam if he's lucky. He should have picked it up at the Wimbledon but his terrible return serve % was what prevented him as always, even in the dying points.

Honestly, I think as overwhelming as Federer is to Djokovic or Murray and others. I think they still won't give up their beliefs to defeat them. Murray knows, if he can get a solid forehand, Federer is dead. His backhand is an ultimate weapon against Federer, but the forehand screws up all the opportunities. So if he can get that in line, he can hammer away at Federer's backhand, much like Djokovic and Nadal.

But, even if Murray defeats Federer in the tournament, the most important thing is, if he can defeat him and Nadal or Djokovic at the tournament to win a GS. Not just 1, and lose to another in the F or SF.

Back to the topic. I think, had Roddick not won the 2003, he'd get some runners up or SF maybe, but I don't think he'd win a slam. It was Federer that was the wall in front of Andy in all his runs. Occasionally, the regular competition like Hewitt and Safin.

jrm
10-31-2010, 07:58 PM
No way, Ferrero would have faired much much better against Nalby than against Roddick. Spaniard probably would have had the mental edge.

Ferrero and mental edge? He lost against Costa when being clear favouirte and the only reason why he won RG titel was because Verkerk was even more nervous than him!