Will Andy Roddick ever win Wimbledon? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will Andy Roddick ever win Wimbledon?

Pages : [1] 2

Jimnik
12-11-2005, 01:42 PM
Yes, I'm sure this has been brought up before but I couldn't be arsed to find old threads.

My question isn't necessarily whether he'll win it this year but whether he'll ever win it. Will Roger Federer always be there to stop him? Will somebody else (ie Ancic, Gasquet, Murray) be there to stop him, in a few years time? Or will he keep winning and finally find a way past the Fedster?

Thoughts please!

Fergie
12-11-2005, 01:50 PM
Maybe ... If Roger doesn't play :p

Lleytonisthebest
12-11-2005, 01:53 PM
yes, maybe if roger or some future grass stars as gasquet, berdych, ancic and djokovic won't be in a good day

gusman890
12-11-2005, 01:56 PM
i mean, roger can't win it forever, hes going to lose one day, thats just how life goes.
no body is perfect.

and if roddick ether beats him in the final or beats someother person because federer was knocked out, then yeah he can win wimbldon

Jimnik
12-11-2005, 02:11 PM
yes, maybe if roger or some future grass stars as gasquet, berdych, ancic and djokovic won't be in a good day
Are Berdych and Djokovic future grass stars? I thought they love their red dirt. Maybe Berdych has the potential but so did Safin and look at what he's done.

I'm sure there will be good grass court players coming soon but, so far, of the youngsters I've seen this year, none of them seem to have a serve from which they get loads of free points every match. But I could be wrong, we'll see what happens.

I think Ancic has to be Andy's biggest concern, at the moment.

stebs
12-11-2005, 02:19 PM
No i don't think he ever will win it. If Federer wasn't there then Hewitt would still be ahead on a list of people to win it. Gasquet could also develop into a threat on all surfaces including grass and Ancic is there as well.but as for 06...It's henman all the way.

Devotee
12-11-2005, 02:20 PM
if he doesn't have to play Federer

Galaxystorm
12-11-2005, 02:20 PM
NOPE

Federerthebest
12-11-2005, 02:24 PM
maybe if roger or some future grass stars as gasquet, berdych, ancic and djokovic

:retard:

In answer to the thread topic, no, he's not good enough. And this is a good thing: the thought of someone who can barely hit a volley winning Wimbledon is extremely painful to me.

Jimnik
12-11-2005, 02:38 PM
:retard:

In answer to the thread topic, no, he's not good enough. And this is a good thing: the thought of someone who can barely hit a volley winning Wimbledon is extremely painful to me.
What about players like Agassi and Hewitt? They didn't need volleys to win Wimbledon.

Personally, I like it when we see someone with a new style of play come along and do well. Andy could be the first to win Wimby with a big serve and a big forehand style.

Federerthebest
12-11-2005, 02:52 PM
What about players like Agassi and Hewitt? They didn't need volleys to win Wimbledon.

Nor did Borg, but the difference between these players and Roddick is that they were at least capable of hitting a volley when they needed to. Wimbledon is the jewel of the sport, prized by players above any other tournament. To win Wimbledon is to signal that you are one of the all-time greats. I believe it would be detrimental to the sport if a player, who possesses only a laughably-weak grasp of one of the most fundamental shots in tennis, were to join the ranks of the Wimbledon pantheon. :)

LaTenista
12-11-2005, 04:21 PM
I voted probably, at least one year Roger won't play or he'll lose before the final to someone like Gasquet.

*Ljubica*
12-11-2005, 04:22 PM
I am not a fan of Roddick - but I think he probably weill win it one day - no reason why not. He has already proved his game is suited to grass enough to reach the Final - and by the law of averages Federer has got to have an "off day" sometimes. As for the volleying - well hardly anyone volleys these days and the grass is much slower at Wimbledon recently so you don't necessarily have to volley to be a Wimbledon champion. As people have said already here, - Agassi, Hewitt and Borg didn't have great volleyng skills and they are all former champions and I think Roddck's volleying has improved a lot recently anyway.

adee-gee
12-11-2005, 05:09 PM
Yes. Once he finds a decent coach (like me) that can sort out the various flaws in his game he will. Grass suits his game, when he's confident in his game and serving well there is very little an opponent can do, no matter how good they are. Federer included, if Andy can sort out a couple of areas, such as his returns, volleys and backhand then he will probably get broken a maximum of twice or three times a match.

DrJules
12-11-2005, 05:17 PM
Only Roger Federer is stopping him from winning it. Nobody else returns his serve well enough on grass to beat him. Therefore, if Roger is ill or injured Andy Roddick would have a very good chance of winning Wimbledon. Most players actually play poorly at Wimbledon.

landoud
12-11-2005, 05:58 PM
if roger withdrew for any reason... he will win it

prima donna
12-11-2005, 06:22 PM
Andy is currently 3rd best grass courter.

He would need a withdraw from first Roger and then Hewitt.

El Legenda
12-11-2005, 06:38 PM
never

blosson
12-11-2005, 06:40 PM
Andy is currently 3rd best grass courter.

He would need a withdraw from first Roger and then Hewitt.

Excuse me but Andy is currently the 2nd best grass player as per Wimbledon own rankings. :o

Dusk Soldier
12-11-2005, 06:41 PM
Third best? Question: If Hewitt is soo much better on grass than Andy Roddick, why didn't he win Queen's this year?

DrJules
12-11-2005, 06:44 PM
Will Andy Roddick be seeded number 2 at Wimbledon 2006. It will be interesting to see how many places they drop Rafael Nadal.

NyGeL
12-11-2005, 06:48 PM
don't think so... but he can't do it.

prima donna
12-11-2005, 06:49 PM
Hewitt's already claimed Wimbledon, how can one ever put a Wimbledon champion behind someone he's 6-2 against ?

Lleyton won Wimbledon, Andy won Queen's. Wanna trade ? :rolleyes:

Loremaster
12-11-2005, 06:57 PM
Hewiit winning Wimbledon was a fluke not many rivals , and Andy on grass deafated Hewitt in straight sets and if Hewitt is so good on grass why he is loosing to guys like Karlovic :P And Roddcik will be again #2 seed at Wimbledo and Hewitt #3 so Hewitt will play Federer once again and will have his ass kicked once again :devil:

keqtqiadv
12-11-2005, 06:57 PM
Roger is a problem, but Andy can beat any other player (he can be defeated by the others).

keqtqiadv
12-11-2005, 07:01 PM
Andy is currently 3rd best grass courter.

He would need a withdraw from first Roger and then Hewitt.
He can beat Hewitt.

RonE
12-11-2005, 07:06 PM
In most probability he will win it one day. He is still young and has plenty of years in him. Roger cannot keep winning there forever- even the great Sampras had his streak there disrupted in his peak in 1996. As was said, there are not many players who consistently do well on grass with the exception of Roddick, Hewitt and Federer. If Andy were to face Hewitt he would stand a good chance- the one time they played on grass last year in Queen's Roddick won and it the surface in which he has the best chance to beat Hewitt.

nobama
12-11-2005, 07:41 PM
Excuse me but Andy is currently the 2nd best grass player as per Wimbledon own rankings. :oOf course but it's easier to be #2 when you don't have to meet Sir Roger until the finals. Andy's lost three times at Wimbledon, and every time to Roger. What they should've done this year is arranged it so Andy and Lleyton were on the same side of the draw so they would've met in the semis.

disturb3d
12-11-2005, 07:59 PM
The amount of solid grass-players is extremely limited. So yes, Mr. Talentless has his chance.

Any player who isn't intimidated by Andy, dismantles him.
Thats how it is, thats how it was. Thats how it always will be.

blosson
12-11-2005, 08:08 PM
Of course but it's easier to be #2 when you don't have to meet Sir Roger until the finals. Andy's lost three times at Wimbledon, and every time to Roger. What they should've done this year is arranged it so Andy and Lleyton were on the same side of the draw so they would've met in the semis.

The only time Andy and Leyton met on grass, Andy won. End of story.

nobama
12-11-2005, 08:29 PM
The only time Andy and Leyton met on grass, Andy won. End of story.Yeah, but the seeding is not just based upon warm-up results. And Hewitt is a former Wimbledon champ. I don't think there's enough difference between the two to mess with the seedings when they're #2 and #3 in the rankings. Or at least put them both on the same side of the draw. But I think the whole tinkering with the seeding is stupid anyway. Especially since they don't do it at RG.

superpinkone37
12-11-2005, 08:36 PM
He can win it, and he probably will. He's reached the final the past two year and the semi's the year before...losing to Federer all three times. Andy may someday beat Roger again but I don't think it will be on grass. That said, Roger cannot possibly win Wimbledon for forever..he is bound to have a bad day one of these years and go out early.

williaer
12-11-2005, 08:43 PM
i think he will and i sure as hell hope it involves the creaming of federer in the finals :)

musefanatic
12-11-2005, 09:29 PM
I hope he does but i don't really think he will. When Fed has stopped playing and he's free from him there'll be other up can coming starts to beat him so I think it's almost impossible!

almouchie
12-11-2005, 09:30 PM
as many of u said that his gam eis suited & he has already reached the final twice, but i dont honesty think he will, other more talented & better capable players will come up & challenge him

mangoes
12-11-2005, 10:35 PM
No.

Dirk
12-11-2005, 11:58 PM
Borg could volley great he just didn't do it much. Hewitt has very good volleys too. Andy probably won't win it.

nkhera1
12-12-2005, 12:53 AM
The only way Andy Roddick can ever win Wimbledon is if the other 99 top players somehow have an injury (provided Roddick is still in the top 100), and even than he may lose to someone like Braciali.

AgassiDomination
12-12-2005, 01:12 AM
He probably will win it, I dont see how people are saying he doesnt have a chance when he has made it to the final twice in a row...

LoveFifteen
12-12-2005, 01:59 AM
Man, some people here are so hateful and nasty! Okay, obviously, Federer is a better tennis player than Roddick, but Roddick has reached the final of Wimbledon the past two years. Doesn't that count for anything? It astounds me that people can call Roddick talentless and pathetic when he's reached the final of Wimbledon two years in a row. It smacks of petty high-school level jealousy ...

DrJules
12-12-2005, 10:44 AM
I am amazed how many people are saying no considering Andy Roddick has reached the last 2 finals and was semi-finalist the year before. He has only lost to 1 player at Wimbledon in the last 3 years.

tangerine_dream
12-12-2005, 04:13 PM
I am amazed how many people are saying no considering Andy Roddick has reached the last 2 finals and was semi-finalist the year before. He has only lost to 1 player at Wimbledon in the last 3 years.
Blind hatred outmuscles reason on these boards.

ServeAlready81
12-12-2005, 05:33 PM
One thing I think we must factor in is the mental aspect of this. How many times can a player motivate themself to reach the final of a grandslam, only to know that they'll probably be beaten by their main nemesis in the final? If Federer were somehow to withdraw from Wimbledon, or get injured before the 2nd week Andy has the best chance out of anyone to win it.

nobama
12-12-2005, 05:55 PM
The only way Andy Roddick can ever win Wimbledon is if the other 99 top players somehow have an injury (provided Roddick is still in the top 100), and even than he may lose to someone like Braciali.You mean like he did this year? :rolleyes:

ServeAlready81
12-12-2005, 05:58 PM
I find it hilarious that people in this thread are actually calling Andy "talentless". You don't win a grand slam and get to #1 in the world by being "talentless". True, he may not have a complete game like Federer, but he's made what strengths he does have work for him beautifully.

Jimnik
12-12-2005, 07:26 PM
I think "talent" is a bullshit word. At the end of the day, it's all a state of mind. If you have the belief, you'll eventually succeed. You either like hitting the ball hard and taking risks or you like chasing and playing safe shots. You're either more comfortable with a more conventional style or you prefer playing your own unique style.

Federer and Safin have games which are pretty to look at, does that mean they are more "talented"? They do what they do best and Andy does what he does best. The fact that their methods differ doesn't make anyone better than anyone else. The fact that Federer wins, when they play eachother, is the reason Federer is the better player - style, talent (or whatever you want to call it) has nothing to do with it.

Maybe if you're tall, you have a "talent" for hitting a bigger serve and bigger shots. If you're short, you have a "talent" for running faster and being more balanced. But people saying "Federer is more talented than Roddick" are just talking nonsense.

heya
12-12-2005, 11:23 PM
Caring family, great coaches,
hunger for work,
good luck (like bad line calls, balls clipping the net cord, bad ball bounce)
& a healthier, more suitable body type for tennis

Those relate to tennis. They're not related to intellect & respectability.
I've seen some not-so-smart, dishonest & not-so-charming Slam winners.

prima donna
12-12-2005, 11:35 PM
But people saying "Federer is more talented than Roddick" are just talking nonsense.

Congrats on making my signature and as Deivid would say, good marijuana you smoke, no ?

Corey Feldman
12-12-2005, 11:43 PM
The only time Andy and Leyton met on grass, Andy won. End of story.so? the only time Derrick Rostagno met Pete Sampras on grass in 1991 he won.. that didnt mean he was gonna/or did win Wimbledon any time soon :silly:
besides, Lleyton has taken out Roddick 3 from 3 in Grand Slam meetings, when it really counts.End of story.

anyhow, back to the thread topic... he could win someday, maybe if Federer wins Roland Garros in that year and is a bit drained physically/mentally.

Corey Feldman
12-12-2005, 11:49 PM
But people saying "Federer is more talented than Roddick" are just talking nonsense.Federer is an artist on court...Da Vinci with a tennis racket :cool: , Roddick is a Kindergarten child with a crayon compared to him

DrJules
12-12-2005, 11:55 PM
Roddick is a Kindergarten child with a crayon compared to him


Are you sure Roddick's tennis is that artistic. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Roddick's tennis may be powerful and imposing, but artistic :eek:

Corey Feldman
12-13-2005, 12:01 AM
I guess your right... Federer is the artist of tennis..
Roddick is the construction worker, sitting in his bulldozer :drive:

heya
12-13-2005, 12:03 AM
You didn't mention that Roddick didn't take tennis seriously. He neverworkedhard becausehealwayswent to parties and exhibitions.
He showed up unprepared & jokedaroundinsteadofpracticing.
Consequently, he didn't try very hard ever since the year 2000.
He twisted his ankle at the
French Open & he hired inept coaches.
Remember Mr. I Love Myself Brad Gilbert.

Jimnik
12-13-2005, 01:13 AM
Federer is an artist on court...Da Vinci with a tennis racket , Roddick is a Kindergarten child with a crayon compared to him
Exactly my point. Federer has a "pretty" game.

Doesn't make him more "talented".

Maybe he can become a ballet dancer when he retires. Who cares. This is sport not art.

Havok
12-13-2005, 01:26 AM
Borg could volley great he just didn't do it much. Hewitt has very good volleys too. Andy probably won't win it.
Hewitt doesn't really attack the net anyways. He's got nothing big to come in off of, no big forehand/backhand/serve or anything like that. I would rate Hewwit's colleys as good, not very good but to each their own I guess.

Andy has been the most consistent on grass, apart from all the other surfaces he plays on, and he's easily the second best grass courter in the past 3 years (Grosjean being #3), what he needs is for Roger to simply lose (fat chance on that happening :() or just catch fire and sustain it and beat Roger. He did catch fire in the 04 finals but Roger was able to throw him off his game as well as up his game to win the title that year. This year he played nowhere near his best on grass, far from it actually, and still got to the finals beating some quality opponents along the way and getting through sticky situations. Andy's got a great shot at the title and would have won it a boatload of times if Roger never developed into the champ he is, but I'm fairly confident that Andy will win Wimbledon sooner or later.

Havok
12-13-2005, 01:28 AM
so? the only time Derrick Rostagno met Pete Sampras on grass in 1991 he won.. that didnt mean he was gonna/or did win Wimbledon any time soon :silly:
besides, Lleyton has taken out Roddick 3 from 3 in Grand Slam meetings, when it really counts.End of story.

anyhow, back to the thread topic... he could win someday, maybe if Federer wins Roland Garros in that year and is a bit drained physically/mentally.
USO 01: one of the worst line calls ever
RG 01: Andy retired when it was dead even a set a piece and 2-2 in the 3rd set.

Hardly something you should really talk up.

Dirk
12-13-2005, 12:52 PM
I think "talent" is a bullshit word. At the end of the day, it's all a state of mind. If you have the belief, you'll eventually succeed. You either like hitting the ball hard and taking risks or you like chasing and playing safe shots. You're either more comfortable with a more conventional style or you prefer playing your own unique style.

Federer and Safin have games which are pretty to look at, does that mean they are more "talented"? They do what they do best and Andy does what he does best. The fact that their methods differ doesn't make anyone better than anyone else. The fact that Federer wins, when they play eachother, is the reason Federer is the better player - style, talent (or whatever you want to call it) has nothing to do with it.

Maybe if you're tall, you have a "talent" for hitting a bigger serve and bigger shots. If you're short, you have a "talent" for running faster and being more balanced. But people saying "Federer is more talented than Roddick" are just talking nonsense.

Ok let me help you out here. Roger does have a prettier game but he is MORE TALENTED than Andy because he has a better FH, better BH, better return, is a master of taking the ball early off of both sides. better volleys, better slices and chips, is smarter with his tactics, hits more angles, and he is a better athlete than Andy. Andy only serves better than Roger and even that is debatable.

You can believe all you want that you can win but unless you have the skills you need the other player to given you a lot of points from their side otherwise you are just living in a movie.

krystlel
12-13-2005, 12:56 PM
Ok let me help you out here. Roger does have a prettier game but he is MORE TALENTED than Andy because he has a better FH, better BH, better return, is a master of taking the ball early off of both sides. better volleys, better slices and chips, is smarter with his tactics, hits more angles, and he is a better athlete than Andy. Andy only serves better than Roger and even that is debatable.

You can believe all you want that you can win but unless you have the skills you need the other player to given you a lot of points from their side otherwise you are just living in a movie.
But you're comparing who has the better game at the moment by their shots, so that's not comparing talent. Isn't talent referring to the skills that you're born with and almost all of those skills that you mentioned can be improved, although I'm not saying that they necessarily will be.

Dirk
12-13-2005, 12:59 PM
Krystlel there is no way in hell I can imagine you saying Andy is more naturally talented than Roger. Andy will never be up to Roger's level even if Roger were to stop improving now. Roger passed Andy on the talent scale prior to the juniors.

Dirk
12-13-2005, 01:01 PM
Hewitt doesn't really attack the net anyways. He's got nothing big to come in off of, no big forehand/backhand/serve or anything like that. I would rate Hewwit's colleys as good, not very good but to each their own I guess.

Andy has been the most consistent on grass, apart from all the other surfaces he plays on, and he's easily the second best grass courter in the past 3 years (Grosjean being #3), what he needs is for Roger to simply lose (fat chance on that happening :() or just catch fire and sustain it and beat Roger. He did catch fire in the 04 finals but Roger was able to throw him off his game as well as up his game to win the title that year. This year he played nowhere near his best on grass, far from it actually, and still got to the finals beating some quality opponents along the way and getting through sticky situations. Andy's got a great shot at the title and would have won it a boatload of times if Roger never developed into the champ he is, but I'm fairly confident that Andy will win Wimbledon sooner or later.

Hewitt would do a lot better if he came to the net more. You don't need to hit hard fast balls in order to have a great approach shot sometimes a off speed one would serve you better. Hewitt has better volleying skills than Andy and that probably won't change in the future.

krystlel
12-13-2005, 01:32 PM
I didn't say that Andy was more talented than Roger. I just thought your argument wasn't very strong. The talent scale probably doesn't change much throughout a person's career. To me, talent is a player's potential and how well they would realistically do if they were to train an average amount. Indeed, Federer is more naturally talented than Roddick since he has better racquet control, timing, has a better tennis brain, etc but that debate is not something I would be bothered going into detail with.

Fumus
12-13-2005, 07:48 PM
Andy will win Wimbly. He has had the best record next to Fedex, and he can beat everyone else on the stuff. I think Grass is Roddick best surface...the shorter the rallies the better for Andy it seems.

heya
12-13-2005, 09:41 PM
Hewitt's skills must've magically given him bagels. No twisted ankle & indifference from oppoents. No horrendous lne call to give him a victory.

We can't forget the bad line call against Agassi at the Indian Wells semifinal.
We have amnesia....Nadal never had a bad line call to lose the 2005 Miami match.
At ages 23 & 24, Federer avoided a 0-3 record in 5 setters.
Without the bad line call against Nalbandian in the Masters Cup in the 1st set tiebreak & 2nd set tiebreak, Federer wouldn't look like an UNLUCKY, inconsistent soul.
A "HEADCASE who existed 4 years ago, but reared his head again!"
Guess who gave the ugly staredown to Nalbandian because the linesman
couldn't give fair calls.

blosson
12-13-2005, 09:49 PM
so? the only time Derrick Rostagno met Pete Sampras on grass in 1991 he won.. that didnt mean he was gonna/or did win Wimbledon any time soon :silly:



Hellow! Did Rostagno played 2 Wimbledon finals in a row? No he didn't. End of story.

Corey Feldman
12-13-2005, 10:13 PM
USO 01: one of the worst line calls ever
RG 01: Andy retired when it was dead even a set a piece and 2-2 in the 3rd set.

Hardly something you should really talk up.
since you have great excuses for seemingly every defeat duck suffers..
what's the one for the Aussie Open SF with Hewitt winning 3-6 7-6 7-6 6-1 this year?
i'll tell you, the better stronger man won
:drive:

Hellow! Did Rostagno played 2 Wimbledon finals in a row? No he didn't. End of story.Well how many Wimbledon titles does Roddick have compared to Hewitt?
End of.

heya
12-13-2005, 10:25 PM
What excuse did Hewitt have when he lost to Nalbandian on grass?
What excuse did he have in the Cincinnati '05 semifinal? Indifference in Cincinnati?
Superfit Hewitt.
Roger: "Fitness & fighting spirit are talents."

Corey Feldman
12-13-2005, 10:34 PM
lost to Nalbi on grass.. no big deal, he handed the argentine his arse on a plate when it mattered most, wimbledon final...
same goes for losing the Cincinnati SF to Rod.... offer the players which match they wanna win the most at the start of a year, Australian Open semi or a Cincinnati semi.. i think we know which they choose.
Hewitt wins the ones that matter, in GS's.

Merton
12-13-2005, 10:39 PM
It is quite possible for Andy to win at Wimbledon. I don't see why this is such an issue. Whether he will actually do it is another question.

heya
12-13-2005, 11:07 PM
It's no secret. Roddick enjoys being on TV & spending time with friends, not playing tennis.
The question is, "Why do people think he really works that hard?"
If you believe hard work is playing poker in Australia, riding on a bus & playing exhibitions, then you're psychotic.

angiel
12-13-2005, 11:11 PM
Federer is an artist on court...Da Vinci with a tennis racket :cool: , Roddick is a Kindergarten child with a crayon compared to him


Was Da Vinci an artist? :confused: :(

heya
12-13-2005, 11:21 PM
...*moans
Da Vinci couldn't play tennis.
Therefore, he couldn't win in life :sad:. It's a requirement to win tennis matches.
That's the law of humanity.

Dirk
12-13-2005, 11:40 PM
Hewitt's skills must've magically given him bagels. No twisted ankle & indifference from oppoents. No horrendous lne call to give him a victory.

We can't forget the bad line call against Agassi at the Indian Wells semifinal.
We have amnesia....Nadal never had a bad line call to lose the 2005 Miami match.
At ages 23 & 24, Federer avoided a 0-3 record in 5 setters.
Without the bad line call against Nalbandian in the Masters Cup in the 1st set tiebreak & 2nd set tiebreak, Federer wouldn't look like an UNLUCKY, inconsistent soul.
A "HEADCASE who existed 4 years ago, but reared his head again!"
Guess who gave the ugly staredown to Nalbandian because the linesman
couldn't give fair calls.

Still bitter that Roger is having the career that you thought Andy would have had after USO 03. Roger has left his headcase days behind him but Andy is currently one. Roger a shadow of himself made the Cup final and nearly won it after 5 weeks of being injuried. Andy can't even play 3 indoor events without hurting himself. Stop making excuses for Andy's career. He never was good enough to be the best of this generation.

World Beater
12-13-2005, 11:44 PM
since you have great excuses for seemingly every defeat duck suffers..
what's the one for the Aussie Open SF with Hewitt winning 3-6 7-6 7-6 6-1 this year?
.

constipation...

heya
12-14-2005, 12:05 AM
Putting words in my mouth? dirk

You insulted Federer by posting: "Roddick has more competitive spirit than Federer."
Why did it piss you off that Roddick could beat Grosjean on clay?
You describing Roddick & French players as "gay" = Interesting.
You calling anyone (not named Federer) an injury faker = Amazing

-The excuse you gave for Federer's losses.
-Federer fans personally insulting other people (how dignified)
-A sweet Federer fan tearing up his room & demanding attention because he was bitter as hell.
-Fans crying about his "CLOSE" LOSS & "TERRIBLE MOVEMENT."
- I'm bitter that bitter people are more bitter than me.
Good fans are nicer.
Men's tennis isn't what it used to be.

World Beater
12-14-2005, 12:29 AM
Putting words in my mouth? dirk

You insulted Federer by posting: "Roddick has more competitive spirit than Federer."
Why did it piss you off that Roddick could beat Grosjean on clay?
You describing Roddick & French players as "gay" = Interesting.
You calling anyone (not named Federer) an injury faker = Amazing

-The excuse you gave for Federer's losses.
-Federer fans personally insulting other people (how dignified)
-A sweet Federer fan tearing up his room & demanding attention because he was bitter as hell.
-Fans crying about his "CLOSE" LOSS & "TERRIBLE MOVEMENT."
- I'm bitter that bitter people are more bitter than me.
Good fans are nicer.
Men's tennis isn't what it used to be.

why are you soo cryptic all the time...?

heya
12-14-2005, 12:38 AM
All the time? You can't be serious!! :tape:

Dirk
12-14-2005, 02:02 AM
Roddick did at one time have a more competitive spirit than Federer but in case you haven't noticed it is no longer 2003 heya.

Federer fans were upset that he lost his final record to someone who shouldn't have been at the Cup and the fact that Roger was very much not himself during the Cup. Andy can't even make the Cup finals when he is healthy so what does that tell you?

drf716
12-14-2005, 02:15 AM
i always think that roddick only has his serve
without it he won't do well

blosson
12-14-2005, 07:42 AM
Escude,

My original post was just to confirm who is the CURRENT number 2 grass player due to facts, that's all. Andy Roddick had better grass results than Hewitt in the last 3 years. He's just second after Roger and it's a fact. I'm not talking about suposely if Hewitt was in in the same draw as Andy (like many of you do) he would not be in the finals. The reality is that they were not in the same draw in the last 3 years and the only time they met (Queens) Andy won and end up winning the title.

Suposely every player who already has a Wimbledon title could be a better player than Roddick BUT there is no facts to deny he is the current number 2 player on grass. Even Wimbledon's own seedings proves that. If he will still be seeded 2 for 2006 that's another story.

nobama
12-14-2005, 10:43 AM
Suposely every player who already has a Wimbledon title could be a better player than Roddick BUT there is no facts to deny he is the current number 2 player on grass. Even Wimbledon's own seedings proves that. If he will still be seeded 2 for 2006 that's another story.Do you really think there's enough of a difference between Hewitt and Roddick on grass that they should be flipped in the seedings? Just because Roddick beat him once in at Queens? Even though Hewitt is a Wimbledon champ?. Sure Roddick's made it to the finals two years in a row, but the one time he and Fed were on the same side of the draw Fed beat him. That's why I said I think Hewitt and Roddick should've been on the same side of the draw, taking Fed out of the equation, and most likely they would have played each other to determine who would play Fed in the finals.

blosson
12-14-2005, 06:41 PM
My original answer was to someone who stated Roddick was the current number 3 grass player in the world. I just stated he is the current number 2 and not 3 based on actual facts and numbers from the last 3 years.

You and others along the way came up with suposed scenarios to justify the fact Roddick should not be the second best grass player around. My affirmative is purely based on 2004/2005 grass records as the actual Wimbledon championship does for their seeding purposes. The sums were added and Andy came on top even if by a small margin.

So I can only continue with the affirmative that Roddick is still the current number 2 on grass until 2006's results change the facts. There is no point in asking yourselves IF Hewitt had been in the same draw as Andy things would have been different ... because they were NOT in the same draw. Hewitt won Wimbledon and that was over 3 years ago. Even the officials at Wimbledon have disregarded this fact when doing the 2005 seedings. Just facts.

Dirk
12-14-2005, 06:55 PM
Even if Andy doesn't defend Queens but puts a good showing there he will likely be number 2 in 06 because of his Queens and Wimbledon 05 results. They base it on two years of grass results.

Golfnduck
12-14-2005, 07:55 PM
This has become a very interesting discussion. I think Andy will win it, you can't come that three years in a row and be left empty-handed. I believe it will happen one day and I will cry like a baby.

Dirk
12-14-2005, 07:58 PM
This has become a very interesting discussion. I think Andy will win it, you can't come that three years in a row and be left empty-handed. I believe it will happen one day and I will cry like a baby.

Lendl never won it and made two back to back finals as did Rafter. If Andy has a long career then he might but with the physicality of his game and his techinque I wouldn't bet on it.

stebs
12-14-2005, 09:08 PM
I think if Andy ever plays a wimbledon while fed is not there for some reason (personal/injury etc...) then he can win it but if he doesnt then i think the only person to beat Fed will be some less well known player who springs a surprise. Andys game plays into Feds hands too much to ever beat Roger on grass so Roger would have to be beaten by someone else for Roddick to win the tournament.

As for Andy and Lleyton i personally believe Lleyton is better but Andy deserves his second seed. Two finals in a row speaks for itself.

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:32 PM
I don't think the seeding is such a huge deal as long as the seeding formula is transparent and does not change arbitrarily. By the way, does anybody know if Andy would be seeded #2 given his current rating distance from Rafa?

prima donna
12-14-2005, 09:36 PM
I don't think the seeding is such a huge deal as long as the seeding formula is transparent and does not change arbitrarily. By the way, does anybody know if Andy would be seeded #2 given his current rating distance from Rafa?
Wimbledon has their own seeding system, that's based on past results and fact is, Andy is a finalist and Nadal, well, hm. He lost in the 2nd round. Given the history of the tournament seeding, I don't see why his "rating distance" from Nadal would play any deciding role.

Merton
12-14-2005, 09:41 PM
Wimbledon has their own seeding system, that's based on past results and fact is, Andy is a finalist and Nadal, well, hm. He lost in the 2nd round. Given the history of the tournament seeding, I don't see why his "rating distance" from Nadal would play any deciding role.

Because the formula carries some weight based on ATP ranking and some weight based on past grass performance. I don't recall the weights, that is why i asked the question.

warmy
12-14-2005, 10:06 PM
I hate it when people through the "more Artistic" label around. Art is a matter of taste and aesthetic values. I personally find Roddick's brutal style of play beautiful, dramatic, and very human. Federer is a more skilled player than Andy (no doubt) and he can do much more with any given shot than Andy can. For me that skill doesn't equate to artistic beauty or creativity, in fact I think it's what prevents me from seeing it in Roger's game.

Will Andy win Wimbledon? I don't think there's even a question that he's capable of it. He's put himself in the position to take it twice before now. If he keeps putting himself in that position someone either has to give him the oportunity or he'll find a way to take it. So I think it's more likely that he will win it than not.

Corey Feldman
12-14-2005, 10:38 PM
constipation...:lol:

Escude,

My original post was just to confirm who is the CURRENT number 2 grass player due to facts, that's all. Andy Roddick had better grass results than Hewitt in the last 3 years. He's just second after Roger and it's a fact. I'm not talking about suposely if Hewitt was in in the same draw as Andy (like many of you do) he would not be in the finals. The reality is that they were not in the same draw in the last 3 years and the only time they met (Queens) Andy won and end up winning the title.

Suposely every player who already has a Wimbledon title could be a better player than Roddick BUT there is no facts to deny he is the current number 2 player on grass. Even Wimbledon's own seedings proves that. If he will still be seeded 2 for 2006 that's another story.sure, he deserved No2 seeding... Hewitt has been unlucky to catch Federer's half of the draw the last 2 Wimbledon's, and infact Hewitt has lost to the slam champ in every of his last 7 Slams.. Roddick's domination of Queens club will keep him as No2 seed (Hewitt himself won Queens 3 years in a row), but id love to see Roddick v Hewitt at Wimbledon some time and may the best man win.

blosson
12-14-2005, 11:04 PM
The Wimbledon formula from this years was...

The All England Club then applies a formula to re-order the 32 players who earn a seed. The formula is:

· Take INDESIT ATP Entry Ranking points at Monday, June 13, 2005
· Add 100% of points earned for all grass court tournaments in the previous 12 months
· Add 75% of points earned at a player’s best grass court event in the 12 months before that.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2005/wimby_seeds.asp

nobama
12-15-2005, 12:06 AM
Even if Andy doesn't defend Queens but puts a good showing there he will likely be number 2 in 06 because of his Queens and Wimbledon 05 results. They base it on two years of grass results.Hewitt screwed himself in 2003 being #1 seed and losing R128 to Karlovic. And then in 2004 he ended up being seeded 7 and losing to Fed in the QF. I'd still like to see Roddick and Hewitt play each other at Wimbledon. Because they've only played each other once on grass and neither one has beaten Fed on grass. The seeding is transparent, but I still think it's not right that they have special seeding for grass and not any other surface.

Jimnik
12-15-2005, 12:13 AM
I think Wimbledon are right to adjust the seedings. It's only unfair because the other slams don't follow but I think Roland Garros should do the same thing.

Merton
12-15-2005, 03:07 AM
The Wimbledon formula from this years was...



http://www.atptennis.com/en/newsandscores/news/2005/wimby_seeds.asp

Thanks for that blosson. So Andy gets an extra (140+35)*5+0.75*((140+35)*5) which is...1531.25. That is not enough to overcome Nadal, so at least Andy has an incentive to do well in the clay period to cut the difference.

Dirk
12-15-2005, 03:11 AM
I don't get why Andy hasn't gotten better on clay as time has gone on. It seems like he is getting worse and worse at it.

Jimnik
12-15-2005, 11:24 AM
I know what you mean but I'm sure he'll get a good run going at Roland Garros, one year. I can see him reaching the quarters and possibly semis at some stage.

Dirk
12-15-2005, 01:20 PM
I don't know about the semis but the the quarters maybe. He has had great draws at RG over the past 3 years. Those are draws I would love for Federer to have. I can't imagine what would happen to him in a tough draw. Andy loses his confidence very quickly when he gets challenged on clay especially RG.

stebs
12-15-2005, 03:01 PM
I don't know about the semis but the the quarters maybe. He has had great draws at RG over the past 3 years. Those are draws I would love for Federer to have. I can't imagine what would happen to him in a tough draw. Andy loses his confidence very quickly when he gets challenged on clay especially RG.

yes. I dont think its too surprising. I think if andy went to the quarters next year then his bad play on clay would stop. I think he just needs one decent run at Roland Garros and then he will be able to play okay every year.

Jimnik
12-15-2005, 03:04 PM
All of his losses have been in 5 sets. They were all matches which he could have and should have won. This year, he was 2-0 up against Acasuso and, had he closed it out, I think he could have gone very far. Acasuso's 3rd round opponent was injured so he would have at least reached the last 16.

Action Jackson
12-15-2005, 03:30 PM
All of his losses have been in 5 sets. They were all matches which he could have and should have won. This year, he was 2-0 up against Acasuso and, had he closed it out, I think he could have gone very far. Acasuso's 3rd round opponent was injured so he would have at least reached the last 16.

Btw, there is a Roddick and clay thread in here already with a lot of responses.

To answer the original question, of course he can win it, doesn't mean he will.

Dirk
12-15-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't think Jim minded the topic going off track.

heya
12-15-2005, 05:50 PM
Winning involves getting in good shape & practicing long hours.
These things didn't happen & he already stated, "I didn't try" last year.
This year, he was satisfied with spending time with friends instead of training with real sparring partners. He just bragged, "I'm #3. What's wrong?"
Of course, he doesn't care. Money is more important.

bavaria100
12-15-2005, 07:04 PM
I don't get why Andy hasn't gotten better on clay as time has gone on. It seems like he is getting worse and worse at it.


I think he doesnīt take the clay season as serious as he should. I think he underestimates the importance of the clay season and at the same time, he overates his achievements on the red stuff. I still remember that he said right before DC this year, that heīs good on clay and that he has won 5 titles on it. He added that only Roland Garros never worked out for him. He really should look back to his first 2 years on the tour and think, what made the difference at that time. He was very good on clay (not only in Houston, he also reached the semis in Rome, made the third round in Hamburg, Monte Carlo and the French Open). But if we look at his achievements on clay throughout his whole career, it wasnīt only the FO that didnīt work out for him. His overall clay record in Europe is 25-23 or something like that (if we take out St. Poelten it would be 20-23). His problem is, that he likes to skip Monte Carlo and loves to play Houston, the weakest tourney on clay. It would be better for him, if he would play Monte Carlo, maybe Barcelona, Rome, Hamburg and then the French Open. In Houston, he faces only opponents who are weak on clay themselves. He isnīt used to play good clayourters and thatīs his biggest problem. He wonīt meet them in Houston, he would meet them in Europe, but I think that heīll always take Houston over serious preperation for the French Open.

Jimnik
12-15-2005, 08:16 PM
:topic:
I think he doesnīt take the clay season as serious as he should. I think he underestimates the importance of the clay season and at the same time, he overates his achievements on the red stuff. I still remember that he said right before DC this year, that heīs good on clay and that he has won 5 titles on it. He added that only Roland Garros never worked out for him. He really should look back to his first 2 years on the tour and think, what made the difference at that time. He was very good on clay (not only in Houston, he also reached the semis in Rome, made the third round in Hamburg, Monte Carlo and the French Open). But if we look at his achievements on clay throughout his whole career, it wasnīt only the FO that didnīt work out for him. His overall clay record in Europe is 25-23 or something like that (if we take out St. Poelten it would be 20-23). His problem is, that he likes to skip Monte Carlo and loves to play Houston, the weakest tourney on clay. It would be better for him, if he would play Monte Carlo, maybe Barcelona, Rome, Hamburg and then the French Open. In Houston, he faces only opponents who are weak on clay themselves. He isnīt used to play good clayourters and thatīs his biggest problem. He wonīt meet them in Houston, he would meet them in Europe, but I think that heīll always take Houston over serious preperation for the French Open.
:topic: I know we're drifting away from the topic but some interesting points have been raised here. Is Andy really not trying as hard as he should be to improve himself? I think it's possible that his loyalty to the American tournaments could be his downfall. If he really wanted to improve his game, he should skip Houston to play in Monte-Carlo and Barcelona.

In fact, I think he would help himself even more if he travelled to South America in February to play against the regular clay courters. It would help him improve his all court game giving him a better chance at ALL the slams, including Wimbledon. There's no challenge in playing the same American tournaments every year, with no top 10 opposition.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 08:19 PM
:topic:
In fact, I think he would help himself even more if he travelled to South America in February to play against the regular clay courters. tournaments every year, when none of the other top 10 players enter.
I've made the same suggestion for Roger in the past and was quickly informed by numerous South Americans that something like that could be detrimental to his health or well being.

I can only imagine what type of treatment Andy would receive, particulary as an American.

He should stick to Europe ...

Jimnik
12-15-2005, 08:21 PM
I've made the same suggestion for Roger in the past and was quickly informed by numerous South Americans that something like that could be detrimental to his health or well being.

I can only imagine what type of treatment Andy would receive, particulary as an American.

He should stick to Europe ...
He doesn't play in Europe in February. But Europe would be better than North America. It would give him a few more chances to play Federer before Wimbledon.

lau
12-15-2005, 08:24 PM
I've made the same suggestion for Roger in the past and was quickly informed by numerous South Americans that something like that could be detrimental to his health or well being.

I can only imagine what type of treatment Andy would receive, particulary as an American.

He should stick to Europe ...
:rolleyes:
Not worst from what an Argentine might recieve in Chile, a Chilean in Argentina, an Argentine in Brasil, etc, etc, etc

EDIT: Dent recieved a pretty good treatment here, but I must say that was an exhibition so probably doesnīt count...

heya
12-15-2005, 08:44 PM
Mattress McIngvale actually wanted to make
Houston THE PLACE for Davis Cup & Masters Cup.
Everyone, except for McIngvale's friends, complained about the damaged clay surface in Houston. Players tripped & fell down while playing this year.
Americans are so blindly LOYAL. Pathetic. :retard:

prima donna
12-15-2005, 08:49 PM
:rolleyes:
Not worst from what an Argentine might recieve in Chile, a Chilean in Argentina, an Argentine in Brasil, etc, etc, etc

EDIT: Dent recieved a pretty good treatment here, but I must say that was an exhibition so probably doesnīt count...
So, first you laughed when I suggested that Roger play South America and now you are making an argument that totally contradicts what was said a few weeks ago ?

:scratch:

lau
12-15-2005, 08:56 PM
So, first you laughed when I suggested that Roger play South America and now you are making an argument that totally contradicts what was said a few weeks ago ?

:scratch:
I laughed because I think he would look out of place. It was Shotgun Blues who suggested he wouldnīt recieve a good treatment. ;)
Obviously, they wouldnīt be treated as locals, but the would certanly recieve a better treatment than what some Latin Americans recieve in other Latin American countries (for example). And I donīt think Andy would be treated worst because heīs American.

Anyway, the idea of Roddick or Federer playing the SA tournaments seems totally crazy..., first of all, for economic reasons.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 08:59 PM
I laughed because I think he would look out of place. It was Shotgun Blues who suggested he wouldnīt recieve a good treatment. ;)
Obviously, they wouldnīt be treated as locals, but the would certanly recieve a better treatment than what Latin Americans recieve in other Latin American countries. And I donīt think Andy would be treated worst because heīs American.
You are a master at taking the worst possible scenario and analyzing it, when it comes to my posts.

Did that post somehow offend you because you felt like I was implying South American's have some type of problem with Americans ?

and if Roger looks out of place as a Swiss, then how does an American (especially with Andy's carefree attitude) look ?

:rolleyes:

lau
12-15-2005, 09:01 PM
You are a master at taking the worst possible scenario and analyzing it, when it comes to my posts.

Did that post somehow offend you because you felt like I was implying South American's have some type of problem with Americans ?

and if Roger looks out of place as a Swiss, then how does an American (especially with Andy's carefree attitude) look ?

:rolleyes:
I already said itīs a crazy idea... The only vision of Andy or Roger in the Bs.As.LawnTennisClub makes me laugh. :lol:
But IMO, Roger would look more out of place than Andy...

prima donna
12-15-2005, 09:03 PM
I already said itīs a crazy idea... The only vision of Andy or Roger in the Bs.As.LawnTennisClub makes me laugh. :lol:
But IMO, Roger would look more out of place than Andy...
You're certainly much more qualified to comment on the subject than I am, so I will take your word for it, dearest.

lau
12-15-2005, 09:07 PM
and yes, I felt you were implying that. I`m sorry if I was wrong. ;) It could be true if he were a politician, but heīs a top tennis player... Teens would probably harass him :lol:

prima donna
12-15-2005, 09:10 PM
and yes, I felt you were implying that. I`m sorry if I was wrong. ;) It could be true if he were a politician, but heīs a top tennis player... Teens would probably harass him :lol:
No, that's not what I was implying.

I have not the slightest clue on South American affairs; be it social or political and aside from visiting family that relocated from Italy to Argentina, my first-hand experience is minimal.

lau
12-15-2005, 09:20 PM
:scratch: I`m too off-topic here.... But players like Noah, McEnroe, Lendl (DC), Moya in his best moment, Guga in his best moment too, etc, etc played in the BALT... I donīt know if they would look out of place... Itīs just that the whole idea sounds soooo weird, specially for an ATP tournament...


Anyway, I think Andy will win Wimbledon some day :p

prima donna
12-15-2005, 09:22 PM
:scratch: I`m too off-topic here.... But players like Noah, McEnroe, Lendl (DC), Moya in his best moment, Guga in his best moment too, etc, etc played in the BALT... I donīt know if they would look out of place... Itīs just that the whole idea sounds soooo weird, specially for an ATP tournament...


Anyway, I think Andy will win Wimbledon some day :p
Oh, okay - characters and personalities then. Gotcha, not so much an issue of nationality then.

Roger is a boring Swiss boy and Andy is a tempermental American. I see the difference! :)

lau
12-15-2005, 09:26 PM
I mean..., itīs not that any top player played in the BALTC..., itīs just that I donīt see Roger or Andy playing little clay tournaments in South American. Thatīs the crazy idea, IMO. Thatīs what out of place...

prima donna
12-15-2005, 09:28 PM
I mean..., itīs not that any top player played in the BALTC..., itīs just that I donīt see Roger or Andy playing little clay tournaments in South American. Thatīs the crazy idea, IMO. Thatīs what out of place...
Maybe those little tournaments are the key to success and are to explain why Roddick + Roger have accumulated a total of 0 Roland Garros titles.

lau
12-15-2005, 09:31 PM
Maybe those little tournaments are the key to success and are to explain why Roddick + Roger have accumulated a total of 0 Roland Garros titles.
Maybe..., who knows.... :shrug: I think Roger will win RG without touching South American territory, anyway.

prima donna
12-15-2005, 09:40 PM
Maybe..., who knows.... :shrug: I think Roger will win RG without touching South American territory, anyway.
We finally agree on something.

cobalt60
12-15-2005, 09:44 PM
I hope he does

heya
12-15-2005, 10:01 PM
He's going to be 24. No way will he win Wimbledon. He thinks he can just stand there, applaud like Mr. Tennis Ambassador & win.

Dirk
12-15-2005, 10:57 PM
Who are you talking about heya? Roger or Andy. Heya I hope you have found joy in the tennis world since 03. I mean come on you do like Roger. He is everything you want in a champ. ;)

Jimnik
12-26-2006, 12:10 AM
So when Connors says that 2007 will be Andy's year, he must be talking about Wimpleton, no?

I reckon, if he plays the way he did in the US Open final, if he holds his nerve, if it doesn't rain and if Federer isn't on the other side of the net then maybe he could win that final. Does everyone agree?

Well I think he can. :)

Johnny Groove
12-26-2006, 12:15 AM
eventually, Roddick will win Wimbly. whether he is the Ivanisevic of the 21st century or the 96 Krajicek, or if Federer gets injured, bored, or just shits around one year, Roddick will win it one year

GlennMirnyi
12-26-2006, 12:42 AM
When Oscar Hernandez doesn't play.

Macbrother
12-26-2006, 03:02 AM
Not as long as Federer is playing at a high level.

Jlee
12-26-2006, 03:10 AM
I think this coming year is going to be his best chance, at least before Roger retires. He ended the season with a lot of momentum and if he can carry it on to 2007 I like his chances of actually challenging Roger.

16681
12-26-2006, 03:35 AM
I would love for Andy to win at Wimbledon. But with Roger around plus other players that have improved their games, I don't know if he can win :sad:

Fedex
12-26-2006, 03:43 AM
eventually, Roddick will win Wimbly. whether he is the Ivanisevic of the 21st century or the 96 Krajicek, or if Federer gets injured, bored, or just shits around one year, Roddick will win it one year
Lendl never won Wimbledon, McEnroe never won the French, and Borg never won the US Open. Its certainly not a given that Roddick will one day win Wimbledon.

jazar
12-26-2006, 09:13 AM
nope. they ahve slowed down the courts so his serve has been slightly neutralised. people know his game and can return his serve better. he wants to come into the net more, and that is a very good tactic at wimbledon, but he doesnt have the greatest slice backhand to approach on and his volleys are rather ropey

Sean.J.S.
12-26-2006, 09:16 AM
I agree with jazar. Andy should win Wimbledon somebody because of his great serve, and his newly adopted volleys, slice approach etc. He reached two Wimbledon finals just by staying back so I don't see why he can't win it now that he has added more dimension (volleys) to his game ...

Naide
12-26-2006, 09:20 AM
i dont think, because when fed will retire, nadal will be there
so i think he has more chances at us open

Sean.J.S.
12-26-2006, 09:22 AM
Um wouldn't Nadal be at the US Open too?

i dont think, because when fed will retire, nadal will be there
so i think he has more chances at us open

Blue Heart24
12-26-2006, 09:25 AM
No

Naide
12-26-2006, 09:27 AM
Um wouldn't Nadal be at the US Open too?

id love to!

Hola Mr. SK
12-26-2006, 11:20 AM
yes,if he improves his return and volley and when he serves pretty well, he can still win over Fed 7-6 7-6 7-6

Alonsofz
12-28-2006, 02:37 PM
If Federer doesn't play, he can...

ljubicic_
12-28-2006, 04:01 PM
No, if Ancic didn't beat Federer in wimby 2003, Andy wouldn't even won that tournement

Loremaster
12-28-2006, 04:20 PM
But Andy didn't won Wimby in 2003, and Ancic beat Roger in 2002 not in 2003 , and in 2004 Roddick won with Ancic two times in row on grass(he is even 4-0 against Ancic), So I don't understand your point at all

ljubicic_
12-28-2006, 04:24 PM
Roddick won wimbledon 2002, right? in that case if Ancic didn't beat Federer than he wouldn't have won that tournement. Federer underestimated Ancic

Byrd
12-28-2006, 04:27 PM
roddicks never won wimbledon, hence the question will roddick ever win wimbledon?.....

ljubicic_
12-28-2006, 04:37 PM
roddicks never won wimbledon, hence the question will roddick ever win wimbledon?.....


my mistake:rolleyes:

Allure
12-29-2006, 12:25 AM
Not likely because there's Federer. And when Federer retires, there are the new guns such as Nadal, Gasquet, Murray, etc who would challenge him. If Roddick were to win Wimbledon, it should have been years ago.

trixtah
12-29-2006, 12:48 AM
i mean, roger can't win it forever, hes going to lose one day, thats just how life goes.
no body is perfect.

and if roddick ether beats him in the final or beats someother person because federer was knocked out, then yeah he can win wimbldon

Roger can't win it forever, but that doesn't mean Roddick is suddenly going to stop aging and take the title. If Roger stops winning it, the player that beat him is likely going to move on

oz_boz
12-29-2006, 12:18 PM
Roddick is easily 2nd fav after Fed, if he plays to his potential. Limited game yes but obviously efficient, not that many players apart from Roger have beaten him on grass. However, 2006 was a bad year for him on the green stuff, he must get back to his form of 04-05.

I say he could, but he must be in perfect form and Fedbot out of order. He has maybe three more years to be a threat, and I think he will be lucky at least once.

So yes.

Byrd
12-29-2006, 12:26 PM
His best chance were probably 2000-02 when there weren't any contenders around.

mickymouse
12-29-2006, 12:55 PM
He has a better chance than anyone else on tour with that hugh serve of his.

merce
12-29-2006, 01:29 PM
I want him to :)
and he's got as much of a chance as the others

Go Andy!!!

jes_021
12-29-2006, 02:15 PM
He's one of the top grass players with his game, so anything can happen,
with a good draw and some luck.

stebs
12-29-2006, 03:10 PM
Roddick can win it but although he is 2nd favourite there are still several players capable of defeating him. I don't like his chances against Hewitt, Murray or Nalbandian. They will be able to control the match against him. Ancic, in my books, is almost as impressive on a grass court as Roddick too.

For him to win he would have to play well and probably beat one of the players I have listed, I don't believe he can beat Federer on grass so he needs an injury or a shock upset. That isn't impossible. Other than Federer, Roddick CAN beat anyone else on grass but I would still back Hewitt if the two were to meet.

tangerine_dream
12-31-2006, 06:16 PM
;)

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s6i13158
Astrologers predict Roddick will never win Wimbledon
Written by queen mudder
29 December 2006

Wimbledon - (Ass Mess): UK Astrologers have joined internet spread-betting website Aitgottaprayer.com in predicting that US tennis player Andy Roddick is more likely to take up competitive crochet than ever win the Wimbledon Men's Tennis championships and have fixed his odds of ever becoming the UK number one at 10/1 for the next decade.

The move follows sports analysts' assessments that Roddick's predilection for fiddling with his clothing and wearing an absurd baseball cap that merely increases the amount of sweat trickling down his face are rock solid guarantees that his compulsion to fidget is greater than any killer instinct to beat an opponent through skill.

Last summer's UK championships saw a plethora of advice to the player about the need to completely change his body language by taking up the game of snooker as a form of physical reconditioning.

But Roddick is immensely single-minded and taking advice from anybody - apart from his lawyer and on rare occasions his tennis coach - is a firm no-no.

Other advice offered to the young tennis ace was perhaps a little more scurrilous: a determined group of Glaswegian supporters on Henman Hill - as the outside of the Wimbledon enclosure is known - was consistent in attempting to obtain odds on the likelyhood that Roddick will soon go public about his orientation. This may explain an awful lot about Mandy Moore's own body language in a recent celebrity magazine interview where the couple were photographed at one of the Seminoles' Casinos.

Byrd
12-31-2006, 06:33 PM
;)

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s6i13158

Lol @ the last paragraph

Ays25
12-31-2006, 06:35 PM
no

BORO77
12-31-2006, 11:04 PM
Maybe on playstation:)

Just Cause
01-13-2007, 05:39 AM
No, Nadal will.

Jimnik
06-12-2009, 09:24 PM
I believed last year but losing to Tipsy pretty much destroyed it. I'm not even sure grass is his favourite surface anymore.

Arkulari
06-12-2009, 11:23 PM
if Andy has one more shot of winning a Slam, it ain't in Wimbledon :shrug:

betowiec
06-12-2009, 11:56 PM
ain't gonna happen
one slam that's more than enough for him

R.Federer
06-13-2009, 05:44 AM
Still think his best chance for another slam is going to be USO. Never say never. Who thought Fed would ever win the French.
Anything can happen. Impossible is nothing. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Audacity
06-13-2009, 05:54 AM
Only if he gets a very favourable draw like Nadal being knocked out early.

The Oracle
06-13-2009, 07:33 PM
I would like to think this HOT THING can.........

He is the American Sweetheart in tennis and America needs him to win Wimbledon for them.

Bascule
06-13-2009, 07:37 PM
Only if the scenario happen to be much worse than the last one at RG.

heya
06-14-2009, 02:56 AM
Real tennis fans don't care for country worship. They would be behind losers like Brad Gilbert, Mal Washington and Blake if it's that important.
Davis Cup assholes Pat McEnroe and Blake ate humble pie after Nadal won Wimbledon and Australia. Roddick helped Federer with the Djokovic insults in the US Open interview. Andreev choked happily there. Blake and McEnroe wished for more suffering in Roddick's life, except during Davis Cup ties. They prayed for great luck and "history" for Federer next time. They sure got what they drooled for.

Johnny Groove
06-14-2009, 03:05 AM
Real tennis fans don't care for country worship. They would be behind losers like Brad Gilbert, Mal Washington and Blake if it's that important.
Davis Cup assholes Pat McEnroe and Blake ate humble pie after Nadal won Wimbledon and Australia. Roddick helped Federer with the Djokovic insults in the US Open interview. Andreev choked happily there. Blake and McEnroe wished for more suffering in Roddick's life, except during Davis Cup ties. They prayed for great luck and "history" for Federer next time. They sure got what they drooled for.

Poetic.

ClaudiuS
07-04-2009, 12:27 AM
He's just one match away.

But he won't make it.

rocketassist
07-04-2009, 12:30 AM
Not this year but if he wins it he will have achieved everything he set out to do in his career, which would be a very successful one even if it's only 2 slams.

Bagelicious
07-04-2009, 12:37 AM
Not this year but if he wins it he will have achieved everything he set out to do in his career, which would be a very successful one even if it's only 2 slams.

It speaks to the crazy dominance of Fedal that 'only' 2 slams doesn't seem that big an achievement. He's already had a very successful career, Slam winner, #1 ranking, inside the top ten for 6 (?) years. That's a great career by anyone's standards.

rocketassist
07-04-2009, 12:40 AM
It speaks to the crazy dominance of Fedal that 'only' 2 slams doesn't seem that big an achievement. He's already had a very successful career, Slam winner, #1 ranking, inside the top ten for 6 (?) years. That's a great career by anyone's standards.

I ain't saying I disagree. I totally agree. But Fed and Pete 14, Laver 11, Borg 11, Agassi 8, Connors 8, Lendl 8, Wilander 7, McEnroe 7, Edberg 6, Becker 6, Nadal 6. These guys are the ones that get fawned over.

People only go on about multiple slam champions and don't give enough credit to guys who have won even one slam. It is so difficult to even get hold of one. Ask Rios and Henman.

If Muzza wins one slam title in the next 12 years he will be a legend.

jcempire
07-04-2009, 02:18 AM
I ain't saying I disagree. I totally agree. But Fed and Pete 14, Laver 11, Borg 11, Agassi 8, Connors 8, Lendl 8, Wilander 7, McEnroe 7, Edberg 6, Becker 6, Nadal 6. These guys are the ones that get fawned over.

People only go on about multiple slam champions and don't give enough credit to guys who have won even one slam. It is so difficult to even get hold of one. Ask Rios and Henman.

If Muzza wins one slam title in the next 12 years he will be a legend.

you right. and have to compare who they play against in a same generation

Jimnik
07-04-2009, 09:15 AM
I would like to say this year or never for Andy, but then I remember Ivanisevic. Everyone thought 1998 was his chance that he would finally do it, including Sampras. Then we had the 5-set epic and it looked even more likely, then the let-down. Goran pretty much gave up half-way through the final set.

I could see tomorrow being a similar story:

Federer = Sampras
Roddick = Ivanisevic

heya
07-04-2009, 03:33 PM
He should cut his #1 of wins by half and play only well on grass. Yes, a twin of Goran. :rolleyes:

vamosinator
07-04-2009, 03:39 PM
Real tennis fans don't care for country worship. They would be behind losers like Brad Gilbert, Mal Washington and Blake if it's that important.
Davis Cup assholes Pat McEnroe and Blake ate humble pie after Nadal won Wimbledon and Australia. Roddick helped Federer with the Djokovic insults in the US Open interview. Andreev choked happily there. Blake and McEnroe wished for more suffering in Roddick's life, except during Davis Cup ties. They prayed for great luck and "history" for Federer next time. They sure got what they drooled for.

:worship:

rocketassist
07-04-2009, 03:39 PM
I would like to say this year or never for Andy, but then I remember Ivanisevic. Everyone thought 1998 was his chance that he would finally do it, including Sampras. Then we had the 5-set epic and it looked even more likely, then the let-down. Goran pretty much gave up half-way through the final set.

I could see tomorrow being a similar story:

Federer = Sampras
Roddick = Ivanisevic

Possibly, but Goran didn't have a Slam title of any form nor was he playing a five time champ, he was playing a guy who hadn't won Wimbledon either.

if, say, Djokovic was the opponent tomorrow, there would be more parallels.

SheepleBuster
07-05-2009, 06:29 PM
Roddick had his chances. He should've won this years match. 3 strikes and out if you ask me. With the young guns coming up and Murray being around next year hopefully with Nadal and a rejuvenated Djokovic, Del Potro, and Tsonga, Roddick may not even make it to the finals again. Forget Roger. He'll be the least of his problems.

ballbasher101
07-05-2009, 06:41 PM
I think this was his last great chance. Next year Murray and the Djoker will be better players so I don't see Roddick ever winning Wimbledon. Federer will always be there to deny him also.

tennishero
07-05-2009, 06:42 PM
i think this was his last chance.

Corey Feldman
07-05-2009, 06:43 PM
Hell No :D

Lurker011
07-05-2009, 07:09 PM
roddick will pull an ivanisevic..that year a 19 yr old Fed beat Pete..who,i think goran would not have beaten in the finals and rafter beat agassi,who i think goran would have lost to in the finals also..next year..a 19 yr old dimitrov will beat fed..djokovic will beat nadal in the SF...roddick will beat murray in the SF in 5 sets and beat djokovic in the finals in 5 sets and he will finally win Wimbledon a la goran ivanisevic!!

ballbasher101
07-05-2009, 07:15 PM
roddick will pull an ivanisevic..that year a 19 yr old Fed beat Pete..who,i think goran would not have beaten in the finals and rafter beat agassi,who i think goran would have lost to in the finals also..next year..a 19 yr old dimitrov will beat fed..djokovic will beat nadal in the SF...roddick will beat murray in the SF in 5 sets and beat djokovic in the finals in 5 sets and he will finally win Wimbledon a la goran ivanisevic!!


Are you a Hollywood writer because that story of yours is good ;). Roddick's chance is gone.

Polikarpov
07-05-2009, 07:18 PM
When ducks fly.

chowdahead25
07-05-2009, 07:30 PM
I really hope he wins it next year. He really needs a hug. haha

Jimnik
04-04-2010, 08:22 PM
After he lost to Tipsy in 2008 I really thought it was the end. But who knows, maybe there is hope.

I can't see him doing an Ivanisevic simply because he relies too much on his youthful energy and reactions. He has to do it either this year or next imo.

andy neyer
04-04-2010, 09:34 PM
Wimbledon is the jewel of the sport, prized by players above any other tournament.


Not really, no.

andy neyer
04-04-2010, 09:36 PM
After he lost to Tipsy in 2008 I really thought it was the end. But who knows, maybe there is hope.

I can't see him doing an Ivanisevic simply because he relies too much on his youthful energy and reactions. He has to do it either this year or next imo.

Yeah, he does have a real shot. He's only 27 and seems to be playing his best tennis ever. Who knows, if Federer doesn't have a good day, he might win it. Last year he was so close of beating Federer that it would be stupid at this point to think that the only way he can win Wimby is if he doesn't have to face Federer.

Certinfy
04-04-2010, 09:37 PM
Yeah, I believe he can, to me he's by far the 2nd best player on grass.

FEDERERBEAUTY
04-04-2010, 09:44 PM
He's the player I most want to see win Wimbledon now. I hope he does it this year.

dylan24
04-04-2010, 09:48 PM
if he doesn't have to play federer in the final, he will win it.

Kubecki
04-04-2010, 09:51 PM
In London Federer can lose only in the final :D

timafi
04-04-2010, 09:52 PM
let's hope that Roddick winning Wimbledon never happens,never

-Valhalla-
04-04-2010, 10:03 PM
Wimbledon is the jewel of the sport, prized by players above any other tournament.

Not really, no.

Oh yeah it is. Just ask the players themselves.

Certinfy
04-04-2010, 10:07 PM
Oh yeah it is. Just ask the players themselves.Fine! Lets ask Davydenko? :lol:

yesyesok
04-04-2010, 10:12 PM
I think it shares the crownd jewell of Tennis with the US Open.

Most players either see that or US Open as the one to win. Just ask Del Potro, or Nadal, if you want 2 examples.

"Hey Rafa, get over here!"

-Valhalla-
04-04-2010, 10:17 PM
Yes, for players that have already won Wimbledon, I'm sure they'd like to add a different slam to their resume.

But for players that are slamless, I'd wager that over 90% would like to win/cherish Wimbledon the most.

Aaric
04-04-2010, 10:23 PM
Not likely, but he could

Selby
04-04-2010, 10:32 PM
Fine! Lets ask Davydenko? :lol:

Wait untill they raise the prize money, then ask him.

heya
04-04-2010, 11:33 PM
Either way, Roddick & his fans don't mind.

andy neyer
04-05-2010, 01:25 AM
I think it shares the crownd jewell of Tennis with the US Open.

Most players either see that or US Open as the one to win. Just ask Del Potro, or Nadal, if you want 2 examples.

"Hey Rafa, get over here!"

I think Del Potro and Nadal might care for RG more.

Well, now that Nadal has won RG so many times he might care more for the USO (the only one he's never won) but if he hadn't won RG, I'm sure RG would be his pick. Just as Wimby is most important to Federer, RG is most important for Nadal.

andy neyer
04-05-2010, 01:28 AM
Oh yeah it is. Just ask the players themselves.

Many players, especially clay court especialists, don't like the grass. Vilas once said that grass was only suitable for cows and horses. Years later, Ríos repeated that comment.

And amongst today's players there are many who still don't seem to like the grass and don't care much for the historic value of Wimby. Read what Kolya said in my sig :)

The Oracle
06-21-2010, 06:33 PM
To quote a great man from American that once spoke these wise words

"YES I CAN!!"

Persimmon
06-21-2010, 06:37 PM
Yes, definately.

born_on_clay
06-21-2010, 06:57 PM
I would like him to win but I don't think it's gonna happen

Matt H
06-21-2010, 07:08 PM
I would like him to win but I don't think it's gonna happen

Agreed. Roddick has the game... the skills... the heart (as he proved last year), but I think it would take both a supreme effort and a stronger mental game than he's ever put together.

And.....he's not getting any younger.

abraxas21
06-24-2010, 11:07 PM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.

Persimmon
06-24-2010, 11:38 PM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.

This.

andylovesaustin
06-24-2010, 11:41 PM
Well... he sure is rested enough to win it.

I think he wants to win it very badly.

So my answer is.. no. I don't think he'll win it.

Jimnik
06-24-2010, 11:49 PM
Apparently he's now 5th favourite behind Soderling.

Surprised his odds lengthened after beating a tougher opponent than any of the other contenders have had to face.

Kip
06-25-2010, 12:46 AM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.

ITA

LleytonMonfils
06-25-2010, 12:48 AM
I got Murray and Roddick in my final so we'll see.

raahaat7
06-25-2010, 06:17 AM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.

+1
Will Roddick ever win Wimbledon? Probably.

Corey Feldman
06-25-2010, 09:28 AM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.by time Murray plays 4th round here England will more than likely be out, then all the pressure returns to him

dodo
06-25-2010, 11:11 AM
I think Del Potro and Nadal might care for RG more.

Well, now that Nadal has won RG so many times he might care more for the USO (the only one he's never won) but if he hadn't won RG, I'm sure RG would be his pick. Just as Wimby is most important to Federer, RG is most important for Nadal.

Nadal has said repetedly that Wimbly was always #1 for him, by far.

ossie
06-25-2010, 11:28 AM
no serve-bot who cant even play a decent rally should ever win a grand slam let alone wimbledon

Jimnik
06-25-2010, 11:37 AM
no serve-bot who cant even play a decent rally should ever win a grand slam let alone wimbledon
Which is why Karlovic will never win Wimbledon. But this thread is about Roddick.

ChuckNorrisFan
06-25-2010, 11:57 AM
This is his year

DrJules
06-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Hopefully one of the more complete players; Federer, Nadal, Roddick or Hewitt will stop him.

ossie
06-25-2010, 12:45 PM
Which is why Karlovic will never win Wimbledon. But this thread is about Roddick.same shit

Sophocles
06-25-2010, 01:34 PM
It's unlikely. Last year was probably his best shot. On the other hand, his nemesis seems to be out of form and whoever ends up in the final may have had to come through some long matches.

zeleni
06-25-2010, 01:49 PM
I think he could. Opposition isn't strong like before. Federer doesn't look so good, Rafa isn't on his top either, Nole sucks on grass as ever, Murray is in poor form since AO final,... So, why not if he gets on fire.

ORGASMATRON
06-25-2010, 02:21 PM
anyone who said anything other than 'no, unlikely' is crazy. roddick had so many chances and he was just unlucky that he was in the GOAT era. last year was his big chance. its unlikely he will get another chance like that. this year he has hewitt and the GOAT to deal with again, and even if he wins then he still has to beat murray, nadal or soderling. unlikely.

fran70
06-26-2010, 01:17 AM
anyone who said anything other than 'no, unlikely' is crazy. roddick had so many chances and he was just unlucky that he was in the GOAT era. last year was his big chance. its unlikely he will get another chance like that. this year he has hewitt and the GOAT to deal with again, and even if he wins then he still has to beat murray, nadal or soderling. unlikely.

To think that you are crazy would be like overrating you. You are just a stupid.

chammer44
06-26-2010, 01:24 AM
I think this is the perfect chance for Murray to win Wimby. With the stupid English media totally focused on the WC, he's receiving less attention and considerable less pressure.

UNfortunately, England's world cup is coming to an end soon.

ORGASMATRON
06-26-2010, 01:40 AM
To think that you are crazy would be like overrating you. You are just a stupid.

i have a new hater. see my sig.

Topspin Forehand
06-26-2010, 01:53 AM
Roddick will never win it.

djb84xi
06-26-2010, 07:29 AM
I highly doubt it. Wimbledon is where Fed shines, Rafa brings his best, and the most unlikely of players pull out their "A" game. I still don't believe Roddick possesses a good enough game to win it all. He is still a player who relies on his serve to get him wins. Without that serve clicking, the player with right game and attitude will beat him, more times than not.

He'll always be a contender, but I don't see him winning Wimbledon unless all of the Top 10 players crash before week 2. That is very unlikely to happen.

Zagor
06-26-2010, 08:06 AM
He has a shot,was extremely close last year.If someone took out Fed for him(maybe Berdych or someone)it would definitely help.

HarryMan
06-26-2010, 08:10 AM
^^ Even if someone took Federer out, he isn't beating Nadal at Wimbledon. Unless we also assume Nadal doesn't make it, then Roddick might just win Wimbledon.

Il Primo Uomo
06-26-2010, 10:41 AM
NOT in my lifetime. Another question? What did I win?

tennisfaNo1
06-26-2010, 10:51 AM
No

helloicanseeu
06-26-2010, 11:02 AM
tough....there's djokovic (the next no.1 in line), who's more an obstacle than federer,
and nadal, who is playing with great intensity and purpose.

i guess roddick has to be content with beating pple like kohlscreibber for the rest of his wimbly life, hehe....

Jimnik
06-26-2010, 01:45 PM
It would be worth Andy winning Wimbledon just to silence the morons.

He's already the greatest grass court player of the open era without a Wimbledon title.

Selby
06-28-2010, 07:09 PM
No chance, no chance at all, poor poor bastard.

andy neyer
06-28-2010, 07:14 PM
I still think he has a chance. He's not in decline yet. I think he can still have his chances in the next 2 or even 3 years.

Persimmon
06-28-2010, 07:14 PM
Nope.

Paylu2007
06-28-2010, 07:16 PM
No

Lol

scoobs
06-28-2010, 07:17 PM
yes.

any day now.

:lol:

Paylu2007
06-28-2010, 07:17 PM
It would be worth Andy winning Wimbledon just to silence the morons.

He's already the greatest grass court player of the open era without a Wimbledon title.


mmmm what are ur backups to say this? :)

allpro
06-28-2010, 07:17 PM
negative.

Paylu2007
06-28-2010, 07:18 PM
yes.

any day now.

:lol:

maybe july 4th is his day :D

Azurebi
06-28-2010, 07:18 PM
I think he can win when he is around 30.

Selby
06-28-2010, 07:18 PM
It's retirement time for the poor guy anyway, I doubt he'll even play another Wimbledon.

Topspin Forehand
06-28-2010, 07:20 PM
Yep poor guy. No Wimbledon for Roddick.

Jimnik
06-28-2010, 07:20 PM
I don't know. It's easy to say "never" now. Next year he might randomly play well again, like he did last year.

Azurebi
06-28-2010, 07:21 PM
Kind of when nobody expect him win, he may win , or he will reach in semi or final again and again, I think.
Odd chances are always there for veteran players to semi or final.
We have been seen it before.

I'm not sure if he can actually win it.

Jimnik
05-08-2012, 04:30 AM
At least Goran still had a serve. Not sure Andy has anything anymore.

ossie
05-08-2012, 09:09 AM
i will die happy knowing that this douchebag mug never won wimbledon.

Mimi
05-08-2012, 09:24 AM
i hope so, poor him :tears: but don't think he will :tears:

Vaskalainen
05-08-2012, 09:43 AM
Not in this lifetime

Linda R
05-08-2012, 11:51 AM
Roddick won't win any Grand slam again.