Is Roddick ready to dominate? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Roddick ready to dominate?

Pages : [1] 2

RealityRyan
01-13-2004, 02:47 PM
Men's tennis as of late has been full of parity. It's not the like the tennis of the 80's/early 90's or even like the current WTA circuit, where two or three players dominate.

Players like Roger Federer, David Nalbandian, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andre Agassi and of course, Andy Roddick head the top. At any tournament it is uncertain who will win...there is no giant or giants. Whereas, on the women's side of things, when the Williams are healthy it certain they will make it to the finals.

Other players such as Justine Hennin Hardenne or Kim Clijsters have challenged the Williams. That is the top for the women; it would be rare if any of those players went out before the semifinals. On the men’s side of things any of those afore mentioned top players may or may not even make the semis, it's all up in the air.

On the Women's side of things two players won all the Slams (Serina, Justine). This year on the ATP side of things no man won more than one Slam. With Agassi, Ferrero, Federer and Roddick winning one Slam each.

So who will it be on the men's side, who is read to dominate, is it the crafty Spaniard, the Amazing American, The Experienced Veteran , or the Swedish fish?

I believe Roddick is ready to dominate, this year he will win the majority of the slams and only go out in the semis or finals of the ones he doesn't win. He is the only player with weapons to dominate on every surface. A-Rod has a big serve, a powerful baseline game, and the ability to rush the net. Roddick has the talents to dominate on Clay, Grass, Hard Court, and the softer indoor courts. If you look at the other Slam winners you will see reasons why they cannot truly dominate...

- Ferrero: Will never win on grass, his game is too one-dimensional. J.C. has an inability to attack the net, which makes his game predictable and beatable. Unlike Agassi, who moved gradually in the court to finish points, Ferrero will almost never abandon his shelter; the basline. Also, with a weak serve like he has, it unlikely he could dominate on any surface but clay.

- Federer: On the other hand, won't ever win on clay with a game based primarily on serve and volleying with those killer drop shots, you can forget about “ole' Paris” for Rodger. Rodger has also shown mental lapses as of late letting by not putting opponents away and or waiting until he is really behind to play his best game. It almost seems like he has cruise control on for the first 1 and a half sets. (Watch the Roddick vs. Federer T.M. Montreal match)

-Agassi: Has proven he can win on any surface. Agassi is fading and retirement looms for Andre but, he's still a favorite to win any slam this year.

Dirk
01-13-2004, 03:07 PM
Andy will be lucky to make the qrts at the French. Roger has done great on clay in Europe and knows how to play on it and was at the RG qrts in 01. He is an all courter not just a serve and volley player. You don't make it to two clay master finals if you can play on the stuff. Betting on Roger to tank matches as a way of holding him back might not be the best course of action when it comes to placing your bets. Although betting that he chokes well that still looks promising but still not a given. Andy will win the other slams though at some point in his career just not the french. Andre doesn't need to do anything anymore to prove anything and JC will continue to get better. I could see him winning OZ and the Open too.

Sjengster
01-13-2004, 03:25 PM
"Swedish fish"? Hmm, forgive me for not taking your opinions too seriously when you can't even get his nationality right. And however he may develop in the future, saying that at present Roddick has the game to dominate on clay is laughable.

lsy
01-13-2004, 03:44 PM
:haha: ...ya, I was trying to figure out who's that swedish fish too and roDger???

Honestly you probably had watched tennis as much as I had...but you're brave enough to come out with thread and analysis such as this among others here who seem to have lived watching tennis since they're born... :worship:

amethyst
01-13-2004, 05:39 PM
Federer won´t ever win on clay?!? His game is not only based on serve and volley. He has tremendous groundstrokes as well. He has already won several clay titles, among those Masters Series Hamburg in astonishing fashion. Of course he has something to prove in Paris, but I think he´s much more capable of winning the French than Roddick ever will be.

MisterQ
01-13-2004, 06:12 PM
Welcome RealityRyan! :wavey: Thanks for your analysis. True, there is that one geographical error, but at least you didn't say Swaziland. ;)

It is a big ???, whether Roddick will continue at the same level this year. I hope he will.

Nacho
01-13-2004, 07:11 PM
That is quite a controversial post. Andy has NOT the skills to dominate on clay... he can win small titles, but not the big ones (well at least so far)

RealityRyan
01-13-2004, 08:58 PM
The player with the most talent and raw ability is Roger Federer. He makes some of the most amazing shots on tour and has some really quick reflexes. All of the top players on the tour including Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi admit he is game is the best on tour.

If you watch sports long enough you realize two things; for one, the most gifted player doesn't always win, and two great coaching makes winners.

Roger might have the best raw skills but he can't consistently produce. If Roger plays his “A” game at Wimbledon, then and only then will he beat Roddick. Federer hasn't consistently done that and Roddick is a much-improved player from last year. Don’t expect straight sets again. Andy has grown so much in his shot selection, controlling emotions and net skills.

Don't be surprised if Roddick still beats Federer's "A" game at Wimbledon. This has do with the second part of this equation; Brad Gilbert. This man, during his pro career was known as the "giant killer' because his game was small but he played so smart he could take down a player with giant game. Brad beat some of the best players on the tour in his day Becker, Chang, Agassi, Jonny Mac, and etc. He also coached Agassi from 100+ in the world to number 1, collecting one grand slam trophy after another along the way. This is Roddick's ace up his sleeve, no pun intended. This is the reason why Roddick will dominate; he has the best coach in the game, even if he is just "winning ugly"....

Oh I forgot to mention....Federer fired his coach, Peter Lundgren, and is likely to go to the AO un coached. Ouch!! That may mean trouble for the Swiss cheese...

RealityRyan
01-13-2004, 09:08 PM
Is everyone forgetting that Andre Agassi won on clay? He's not a clay courter but, his game was so simple and versatile he could. I expect to see Roddick do well well on clay for two simple reasons. The kick serve that he has will take an extra high bounce, it won't have the speed that it would on hard court or grass but, a weapon none the less. Roddick's baseline game is good enough to rival any clay courter. That mean's you Coria!! He went out early last year but, that's a coaching problem. Now that A-Rod is with one of the hottest coaches on the ATP tour, expect him to dominate...

Federer, yea, he's won some Clay tournaments but, who cares? Sampras won some too...Federers is not a net rusher like Pete but, he doesn't have the baseline game to contend with any of those Spaniards.

jtipson
01-13-2004, 09:14 PM
Roddick's baseline game is good enough to rival any clay courter.

Federer .... doesn't have the baseline game to contend with any of those Spaniards.

Um, maybe you got the names swapped around there?

Neely
01-13-2004, 09:40 PM
- Ferrero: Will never win on grass, his game is too one-dimensional. (...)
are you fugging kidding me? Juan Carlos and a one-dimensional game? :eek: :eek:
(nevertheless, I agree with you that Ferrero will probably not win any big events on grass at this time)

Roddick's baseline game is good enough to rival any clay courter.
good joke, dude! :lol: :lol: :lol:
LMAO... Roddick's baseline game is not good enough for the best baseliners! :o ... forehand is superb if he hits it, but his backhand and his footwork/movement on the court sucks... watch for Andy being outgunned by the best baseliners at the French Open ;)

Nacho
01-13-2004, 11:07 PM
Federer has had much better results on the big claycourt tournaments (Montecarlo, Rome, Hamburg & the French) than Roddick, so who in the world would say Andy is a better baseliner?? :rolleyes:

oh yes, a Roddick fan :yawn:

Neely
01-14-2004, 12:03 AM
Federer has had much better results on the big claycourt tournaments (Montecarlo, Rome, Hamburg & the French) than Roddick, so who in the world would say Andy is a better baseliner?? :rolleyes:

I agree with you!!

I really respect Andy and his results/his game, but claiming that Andy's baseline game is one of the best out there s nothing but a frigging joke to me...

Fedex
01-14-2004, 12:44 AM
OMG, Who wrote this bullshit!!!!! :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: Roddick will dominate. Who is this asshole. They must know nothing of tennis. Since when is Roddick the all court stylish player, & since when can Federer ONLY serve & volley!!!! Roddick, as of now will be lucky to get to the QF of RG. Im sure Andy fans are worshipping whoever wrote this. Swedish fish??? He's swiss, not swedish!!! Since when does roddick have a superb baseline game & can rush the net & volley like Federer or Henman. I have never, EVER seen an idiot like you on these boards, i will admit!!! Federer wont beat Roddick even with his "A" game. Go **ck yourself, just so i dont die of anger & laughing. Federer has much better clay results, & can actually win RG! Ferrero is not 1 dementional like Roddick. Have you seen roddicks, movement, BH, Volleys, footwork. Im afraid you are beyond help, my friend!!!

Fedex
01-14-2004, 12:48 AM
God, have you even watched a tennis match?? If you have, Id be suprised, with your so far off anaylisis of Federer and Roddick. Please leave & never come back, your a discrace to a Tennis fan!!

Fedex
01-14-2004, 01:04 AM
Youre a disgrace to an Andy fan as well!!! By far the worst i've seen.

Ma. Estefania
01-14-2004, 02:04 AM
Roddick has the talents to dominate on Clay, Grass, Hard Court, and the softer indoor courts.

I can tolerate to name all the surfaces, but CLAY? :eek: Are you kidding me? He has just won 1 tournament at St. Poelten or something like that and nothing else. And on clay, I think he's yet no contender for the main baseliners.

About Roger...HELLO? He won the TMS of Hamburg...and some other clay tournaments, and he's proven that he has been quite regular, or good enough in all surfaces.

MisterQ
01-14-2004, 02:25 AM
God, have you even watched a tennis match?? If you have, Id be suprised, with your so far off anaylisis of Federer and Roddick. Please leave & never come back, your a discrace to a Tennis fan!!

Fedex, imo this is uncalled-for. Come on now, this guy may be wrong or think differently on some issues, but he put plenty of energy and thought into his posts. He has just arrived here --- I prefer that we give a welcoming and positive impression of this place.

Dirk
01-14-2004, 04:06 AM
Ryan also assumes that Roger won't get any better. LOL Oh and take a look at the Wimbly stats, Andy played great. He needed a tipsy Roger to beat in Montreal. Brad Gilbert is not the end all of tennis. You dismiss Roger and JC way too much and give Andy credit for things he will never do like do great at RG.

JeLuliA88
01-14-2004, 05:24 AM
I seriously don't think Roddick will win the French Open, at least not for a long while.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 05:27 AM
I believe Roddick is ready to dominate, this year he will win the majority of the slams and only go out in the semis or finals of the ones he doesn't win. He is the only player with weapons to dominate on every surface. A-Rod has a big serve, a powerful baseline game, and the ability to rush the net. Roddick has the talents to dominate on Clay, Grass, Hard Court, and the softer indoor courts. If you look at the other Slam winners you will see reasons why they cannot truly dominate...


Roddick could dominate but he has plenty of weaknesses - a unreliable backhand when put under pressure, lack of instinct regarding net game, lack of a B game when he is being outplayed.

Put it this way - if Sampras couldn't dominate on all 4 surfaces then Roddick wont.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 05:32 AM
If you watch sports long enough you realize two things; for one, the most gifted player doesn't always win, and two great coaching makes winners.


Correct


Roger might have the best raw skills but he can't consistently produce.


At the moment but what will happen if he develops mentally as plenty of players have during their career (Agassi, Lendl)


If Roger plays his “A” game at Wimbledon, then and only then will he beat Roddick. Federer hasn't consistently done that and Roddick is a much-improved player from last year. Don’t expect straight sets again. Andy has grown so much in his shot selection, controlling emotions and net skills.


Yet Federer thrashed Roddick at Houston where the surface favours Roddick over Federer so a fairer assesment would be Roddick needs to play his A game against Federer to compete with him.



Don't be surprised if Roddick still beats Federer's "A" game at Wimbledon. This has do with the second part of this equation; Brad Gilbert. This man, during his pro career was known as the "giant killer' because his game was small but he played so smart he could take down a player with giant game. Brad beat some of the best players on the tour in his day Becker, Chang, Agassi, Jonny Mac, and etc. He also coached Agassi from 100+ in the world to number 1, collecting one grand slam trophy after another along the way. This is Roddick's ace up his sleeve, no pun intended. This is the reason why Roddick will dominate; he has the best coach in the game, even if he is just "winning ugly"....


You make some good points and Roddick would probably dominate if it wasn't for Federer but I believe Federer will stop Roddick dominating in the same way that Sampras stopped Agassi dominating.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 05:35 AM
Is everyone forgetting that Andre Agassi won on clay? I expect to see Roddick do well well on clay for two simple reasons. Roddick's baseline game is good enough to rival any clay courter. That mean's you Coria!! He went out early last year but, that's a coaching problem.


Agassi won the French once in 17 years, he needed a comeback and 6-4 in the 5th to do it. Plus why are you comparing Agassi to Roddick who have such different games?
At the moment Roddick's baseline game is no where enar good enough to rival clay courters especially when you consider clay courts are slow and those big forehands of Roddicks will be neutralised.


Federer, yea, he's won some Clay tournaments but, who cares? Sampras won some too...Federers is not a net rusher like Pete but, he doesn't have the baseline game to contend with any of those Spaniards.

And Roddick does? Federer's game is far more consistent of the ground, Federer needs to realise that on clay he should work his way into the point rather then go for winners.

oxy
01-14-2004, 06:26 AM
realityryan is definitely a die hard fan of the dick....well all die hard fans are often blinded by the realities of thier fav's game.....isn't it realityryan....nevertheless thanx for pointing out to us why the dick will never dominate....;)

J. Corwin
01-14-2004, 10:18 AM
Interesting post Ryan. And welcome to MTF. Although I disagree with some of the points you made. ;)

heya
01-14-2004, 12:28 PM
How neat...F fans flattering themselves by putting fans in the same category.
Ironic posts, coming from wishful thinkers.
We shall see what the future'll bring. :lol:

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 01:32 PM
God, have you even watched a tennis match?? If you have, Id be suprised, with your so far off anaylisis of Federer and Roddick. Please leave & never come back, your a discrace to a Tennis fan!!

The pharmacist's downtown. Shall I give you the address?

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 02:25 PM
OMG, Who wrote this bullshit!!!!! :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: Roddick will dominate. Who is this asshole. They must know nothing of tennis. Since when is Roddick the all court stylish player, & since when can Federer ONLY serve & volley!!!! Roddick, as of now will be lucky to get to the QF of RG. Im sure Andy fans are worshipping whoever wrote this. Swedish fish??? He's swiss, not swedish!!! Since when does roddick have a superb baseline game & can rush the net & volley like Federer or Henman. I have never, EVER seen an idiot like you on these boards, i will admit!!! Federer wont beat Roddick even with his "A" game. Go **ck yourself, just so i dont die of anger & laughing. Federer has much better clay results, & can actually win RG! Ferrero is not 1 dementional like Roddick. Have you seen roddicks, movement, BH, Volleys, footwork. Im afraid you are beyond help, my friend!!!

Alright settle down buddy, as you can see alot of thought and effort were put into my posts. I don't just come out and say things. I have constructed some great points. You may not agree with me but, that's why this is a forum. So please by all means argue my points with some of your own. Otherwise, quit trolling my thread...

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 02:49 PM
Agassi and Roddick play a different type of game. Agassi is a true a baseliner, with a compact swing. Agassi wins points by controlling them and punishing his opponents, running them back and forth, until he finishes the point with a great angled shot. Agassi doesn't have a big serve but, still has one of the best “return of serves” in the game.

Roddick is the complete opposite of that. Roddick over powers his opponents with a big serve and a flashy forehand. He gets alot of cheap points like that (winners/aces). His backhand is not a suspect as some think. His backhand has proven to be quite consistent as of recent times(via Brad Gilbert). Roddick's return of serve is a downfall, he stands about 5 feet behind the baseline to return serve and he hits back some of the weakest shots.

This is where the differences between the two end.

Roddick and Agassi have the ability the take control of points with their powerful ground strokes. Both hit the ball with a certain amount of topspin, which is crucial to do on clay. Roddick and Agassi both come into the court taking advantage of balls that aren’t with good depth to give themselves better angles on the ball until they ultimately put it away. This is the reason why Roddick can dominate on clay, this is the type of strategy which let's you accel on clay.

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 02:55 PM
But the difference is, Roddick's court positioning and the consistency of his groundstrokes are both highly suspect compared to Agassi, who is always controlling the game from his position on the baseline - Roddick has more power in his forehand, but is vulnerable to being manoeuvred about the court and dropshotted by the best claycourters. Honestly, I'm not saying that Roddick will never improve on clay, but to say that he has the same baseline skills as Agassi on the dirt is ridiculous.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 02:58 PM
Roddick and Agassi have the ability the take control of points with their powerful ground strokes.


A ability that is neutralised on clay


Both hit the ball with a certain amount of topspin, which is crucial to do on clay. Roddick and Agassi both come into the court taking advantage of balls that aren’t with good depth to give themselves better angles on the ball until they ultimately put it away. This is the reason why Roddick can dominate on clay, this is the type of strategy which let's you accel on clay.

Explain one thing. If Agassi is such a great clay court player with a game that lets him accel on clay then why is it he only won the one title out of 15 attempts, a title run where he needed a easy draw and a incredible comeback in the final which involved what Agassi himself describes the luckiest shot he ever hit in the 3rd set.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 03:03 PM
Roddick will never be as competent from the baseline as Agassi, his shots may well be more powerful in time but he will never be as consistent which is the key on clay.

To have a chance at RG Roddick will have to be on fire with his serve and do a fair share of serve-volleying, he will also need a whole lot of luck. He will have a couple of times where he goes far into the draw but I don't see him playing out of his mind + having luck for 7 matches.
Verkerk did it for 6 matches but it all fell apart in the 7th.

Pea
01-14-2004, 03:04 PM
Someone has been :drink:!

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 03:05 PM
Federer has the talent. He could dominate, keyword there is could. I am saying he won't. Look at Xavier Malisse he's incredibly talented. He's easily one of the most gifted athletes on the ATP tour. He never produced, had great promise but, never did anything.

Look at Hewitt he was world number 1. He won at the English and American Opens. People talked about how he was stepping up to take control. He will dominate and become the next big giant. What happened???


Both those players had coaching problems. Hasn't a certain top ranked Swiss player fired his coach in the past year hmmm….just something to consider guys…

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 03:10 PM
Roddick will never be as competent from the baseline as Agassi, his shots may well be more powerful in time but he will never be as consistent which is the key on clay.

To have a chance at RG Roddick will have to be on fire with his serve and do a fair share of serve-volleying, he will also need a whole lot of luck. He will have a couple of times where he goes far into the draw but I don't see him playing out of his mind + having luck for 7 matches.
Verkerk did it for 6 matches but it all fell apart in the 7th.

Roddick is not as consistant as Agassi. Both are not true Clay courters but, because of there games they are able to go and win on any surface. Something that Sampras could never do. Something that Federer will never do. Something that JCF will cetainly never do..

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 03:31 PM
Hahahahaha!!

(in response to Fedex the Roddick basher)

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 03:32 PM
Federer has the talent. He could dominate, keyword there is could. I am saying he won't. Look at Xavier Malisse he's incredibly talented. He's easily one of the most gifted athletes on the ATP tour. He never produced, had great promise but, never did anything.

Look at Hewitt he was world number 1. He won at the English and American Opens. People talked about how he was stepping up to take control. He will dominate and become the next big giant. What happened???


Both those players had coaching problems. Hasn't a certain top ranked Swiss player fired his coach in the past year hmmm….just something to consider guys…

"English Open"? WTF? Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but if that's your level of knowledge of the game then it's no wonder your opinions are being scorned... there are certainly some worrying parallels at the moment between Hewitt and Federer with them both splitting from coaches, but Hewitt is in the process of coming back after his sub-standard 2003 and it's too early to say whether Federer's game has gone off the rails. Federer has already produced in a way that Malisse hasn't - winning 11 more titles for a start and 1 Grand Slam among them.

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 03:34 PM
(in response to Fedex the Roddick basher)

Be in no doubt though, Fedex was right to criticise your comments, but not in the ridiculously melodramatic and heated way in which he/she did. That's all I was observing when I made the pharmacist jibe.

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 03:44 PM
"English Open"? WTF? Sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but if that's your level of knowledge of the game then it's no wonder your opinions are being scorned... there are certainly some worrying parallels at the moment between Hewitt and Federer with them both splitting from coaches, but Hewitt is in the process of coming back after his sub-standard 2003 and it's too early to say whether Federer's game has gone off the rails. Federer has already produced in a way that Malisse hasn't - winning 11 more titles for a start and 1 Grand Slam among them.

Wimbelton = The English Open...

Just like Rolan Garros = French Open

Flushing Meadows = U.S. Open

Melbourne = Aussie Open
_____________________________

My knowledge of the game is not as extensive as some of the people on this site but, being that I am ranked player in the USTA. I have won a few amateur tournaments. I think have played long enough where I can make judgments about the pros. I know quite a bit about Tennis.

Doesn't Sjeng Schaulken kinda look like Christopher Reeves? Who cares his serve is terrible anyways right? You would think that after a number of years being pro he would see a service coach, to put some more leg action in that thing.... anyways that's neither here or there..

Glad you see the Hewitt and Federer similarities...

MisterQ
01-14-2004, 03:45 PM
A ability that is neutralised on clay



Explain one thing. If Agassi is such a great clay court player with a game that lets him accel on clay then why is it he only won the one title out of 15 attempts, a title run where he needed a easy draw and a incredible comeback in the final which involved what Agassi himself describes the luckiest shot he ever hit in the 3rd set.

It was a "lucky" shot, but one that he was able to execute at a tough moment. Every great player has had these shots, but we have to credit them for pulling them off.

I would be the first to say that Agassi is not one of the greatest clay courters out there. And he would agree himself, I'm sure. But his RG was far from a total fluke. In addition to his 1999 title, he also reached two finals, two semis, and four quarterfinals. In most of these cases he was stopped by really excellent clay players: Ferrero, Coria, Wilander, Courier, Gomez, Kafelnikov.

Many would probably agree, he should have won it back in 1990 or 1991, but his mental game wasn't ready yet apparently...

Anyway, I guess that's a bit tangential to the argument at hand, since Roddick's game is utterly different from Andre's.

RealityRyan
01-14-2004, 03:53 PM
It was a "lucky" shot, but one that he was able to execute at a tough moment. Every great player has had these shots, but we have to credit them for pulling them off.

I would be the first to say that Agassi is not one of the greatest clay courters out there. And he would agree himself, I'm sure. But his RG was far from a total fluke. In addition to his 1999 title, he also reached two finals, two semis, and four quarterfinals. In most of these cases he was stopped by really excellent clay players: Ferrero, Coria, Wilander, Courier, Gomez, Kafelnikov.

Many would probably agree, he should have won it back in 1990 or 1991, but his mental game wasn't ready yet apparently...

Anyway, I guess that's a bit tangential to the argument at hand, since Roddick's game is utterly different from Andre's.

Maybe so, but, Roddick has the same hurrdles to jump that Agassi did. Consistant players don't bow out early. That's why Roddick won't...

Ma. Estefania
01-14-2004, 04:12 PM
Wimbelton = The English Open...

Just like Rolan Garros = French Open

Flushing Meadows = U.S. Open

Melbourne = Aussie Open
_____________________________

My knowledge of the game is not as extensive as some of the people on this site but, being that I am ranked player in the USTA. I have won a few amateur tournaments. I think have played long enough where I can make judgments about the pros. I know quite a bit about Tennis.

Apart from practicing and winning your tournaments, please...at least try to learn how to spell the names of the big tournaments, ok? :rolleyes:

Oh no....maybe you'll always stay at the amateur ones. :p

Nacho
01-14-2004, 04:33 PM
Roddick is not as consistant as Agassi. Both are not true Clay courters but, because of there games they are able to go and win on any surface. Something that Sampras could never do. Something that Federer will never do. Something that JCF will cetainly never do..

huh pardon??

Excuse moi but Roger has already won titles on grass, clay, indoor hard, outdoor hard and even rebound ace. In fact I think the only surface he's never won any titles on is carpet, and frankly I think he will eventually do it.

Besides he's won BIG titles on every surface (a TMS on clay, a GS on grass and the Masters Cup on hard) Andy's big titles came only on hard courts :rolleyes:

As for Juan Carlos he's already won a TMS and reached a GS final on hard courts you know... He only plays a grass tournament per year, so I'm certainly sure he will never get to win it, but still his Wimbledon record (6-3) is MUCH better than Roddick's French Open record (2-3)

:wavey:

Dirk
01-14-2004, 06:05 PM
Roger has consistency improved year in and year out. Coaching is not the problem with hewitt. For one, he was only number one because of Guga's hip injury and two he doesn't have a number like game and was passed this year. 3rd Hewitt didn't play too much this year. Hewitt in 02 had a great year when he changed coaches. Yes its bad for Roger to not have a coach at Oz. We will have to see how it turns out. Andy will never be as good game wise as Roger nor anyone else for a long long time. Roger only needs to be consistent more as a competitor. JC is a very good hardcourter and he has proven that last year. Roger unlike Andy has the game and the ability to win RG. Last two years was all about him not being able to deal with being a fave to win the event. He is able to deal with that much more now clearly.

Deboogle!.
01-14-2004, 07:25 PM
Hmm interesting thread. RealityRyan, welcome, nice to see your well thought out points even though I too disagree with some of them. Agassi is one of the best baseliners ever, and I think it would be to slight him to say that Andy's anywhere close lol.

The thing with Andy is that he actually DID grow up playing on clay a lot. He's said several times that he played most of the junior type tournaments in Florida in clay, so he knows how to do it. Why he has so much trouble on the European clay circuit, I am not sure but I hope and expect to see improvements in that as he is working so hard on fitness, being lighter on his feet, returning, his backhand, etc. But I don't see how he could ever be dominant on anything but fast hardcourts.

Also RealityRyan, you'll just have to learn that many people here just dislike Andy for one/many various reasons and so many of your points will fall on a lot of deaf ears.

Roger may have had good results on clay but he's had plenty of problems at RG as well, as people have already pointed out. I feel like I can say with almost 100% certainty that neither of them will go out in the first round in 2004.... I just can't see it happening lol.

J. Corwin
01-14-2004, 07:57 PM
Ignore Fedex's obnoxious posts (until he/she decides to join in the discussion). ;)

MisterQ
01-14-2004, 08:24 PM
I thought this excerpt from Andre's latest Kooyong interview was relevant to this discussion. Of course, just because Andre says it doesn't mean you must agree, lol. ;)

Q: Looking at all the young players coming through now, do you think that any of these young players can emulate you and win not only the four majors but on top of that gold medals at the Olympics; maybe not in one year but in the coming years?

A: To win all the Slams and the gold medal?

Q: Yes.

A: Sure, it's possible. * It's very possible. * When you look at the talent that exists, you've got guys that can win on a lot of different surfaces. I think Rodger is a great example of a guy that has won on different surfaces. * It will be interesting to see how Andy goes on the clay but everything would suggest that his game is designed to win on clay as well so these are the young guys that are going to be at the top of the game for a long time so you throw in a competitor's heart and mind and some great things can happen.

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 08:24 PM
Federer's French Open record isn't much better than Roddick's, Nacho. :)

Also, Federer has won on carpet for Davis Cup and Roddick has won on clay, also for Davis Cup.

Just an FYI . . .

Roddick's 2003 Record:

Hardcourt Record: 47-11
Carpet Record: 3-1
Clay Record: 12-6
Grass Record: 10-1
Overall Record (including non-ATP events): 72-19
ATP rank: 1


Federer's 2003 Record:

Hardcourt Record: 48-12
Carpet Record: 3-1
Clay Record: 15-4
Grass Record: 12-0
Overall Record (including non-ATP events): 78-17
ATP rank: 2

They look pretty even to me, so once again, neither Fed nor A-Rod is vastly superior to the other. So all you blindsided Fed and Roddick fans can cool it now. ;)

It seems to me that in the last couple of years, Federer and Roddick have both flattered to deceive on the clay; in 2002 they both had great European clay seasons, winning a TMS and reaching a TMS semi respectively, but then bombed out in the first round of RG to very different opponents, whereas last year Federer had another good clay season reaching the Rome final while Roddick was lousy in the big events but then suddenly won St. Poelten, raising people's expectations for the French. Again, they both crashed out in the opening round.

Federer in theory is the likelier of the two to do better at RG since he has made the quarters before and has proved himself capable of winning the big clay titles unlike Roddick; however, he's by no means invulnerable on clay as that Rome final showed, Mantilla completely picked his game apart. Both Federer and Roddick have got to become more patient if they're ever going to achieve the kind of success at RG that Ferrero, Coria etc. have done recently. To be honest, we have to wait until one or the other can break their first-round duck in Paris before they can become real contenders for the title.

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 08:33 PM
Wimbelton = The English Open...

Just like Rolan Garros = French Open

Flushing Meadows = U.S. Open

Melbourne = Aussie Open
_____________________________

My knowledge of the game is not as extensive as some of the people on this site but, being that I am ranked player in the USTA. I have won a few amateur tournaments. I think have played long enough where I can make judgments about the pros. I know quite a bit about Tennis.

Doesn't Sjeng Schaulken kinda look like Christopher Reeves? Who cares his serve is terrible anyways right? You would think that after a number of years being pro he would see a service coach, to put some more leg action in that thing.... anyways that's neither here or there..

Glad you see the Hewitt and Federer similarities...

So, you think taking a shot at my favourite player's serve (hmm, no-one's ever done that before) is the best way to respond to what I said? I've said this time and again to other people on here, he modified the serve early in his career to prevent himself from becoming injured, he had to sacrifice power in favour of percentage. Capiche?

BTW, I do see a slight Reeves resemblance - although it's Schalken's brother who has the debilitating physical condition rather than him (Downs Syndrome, I believe).

TennisLurker
01-14-2004, 09:26 PM
A stupid question for you Sjengster, does Schalken have a second serve or he serves another first serve?

Deboogle!.
01-14-2004, 09:50 PM
I'd trust Andre's opinions over a lot of other people's, Q, lol!!

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 10:07 PM
A stupid question for you Sjengster, does Schalken have a second serve or he serves another first serve?

I think the second is a little shorter in the box, it's pretty much the same pace. But then very rarely does he have to hit a second serve; in the big matches I've seen him play, the lowest his first serve percentage has ever dropped to is around 68. In the US Open QF last year he was serving 80% first serves in the first set - unfortunately Roddick was also hitting about 76% first serves in, and when you consider the difference in service power then that has a very big effect.

WyverN
01-14-2004, 10:51 PM
Roddick's 2003 Record:

Hardcourt Record: 47-11
Carpet Record: 3-1
Clay Record: 12-6
Grass Record: 10-1
Overall Record (including non-ATP events): 72-19
ATP rank: 1


Federer's 2003 Record:

Hardcourt Record: 48-12
Carpet Record: 3-1
Clay Record: 15-4
Grass Record: 12-0
Overall Record (including non-ATP events): 78-17
ATP rank: 2



The clay numbers may be even but you do have to look at the quality of opposition

Sjengster
01-14-2004, 10:55 PM
Mind you, the only real quality wins Federer had on clay were over Zabaleta and Robredo (whoever would have thought he would go down 1 and 1 on clay when he gives Federer such tough matches on faster surfaces?) in Rome; I don't really count the win in the semis because Ferrero was looking fatigued and debilitated right from the start of that match. Federer certainly lost to much better quality opposition, though.

croat123
01-14-2004, 11:16 PM
roddick got five clay wins for winning st. poleten where the second seed wasn't even a top 20 or 30 player...

fedex has better quality clay wins...

Deboogle!.
01-14-2004, 11:32 PM
tangy's statistics, dunno where ya got them girl, are a little wrong. Andy wasn't 3-1 on carpet in 2003 and neither was Federer. Andy got to two semi finals, winning 6 carpet matches and losing 2 so that's definitely wrong and I believe Roger's is wrong too. So those #s may not even be as equal as they look. And yes, a bunch of Andy's clay wins were at Houston and most of the rest at St. Poelten.

However I think the point is still illustrated that BOTH of them have work to do on clay. Federer may be better than Andy but that does not mean he's ready to dominate on it or win RG either.

dain-love-tennis
01-15-2004, 06:54 AM
Hope andy will win the game!

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 08:46 AM
Im sure Andy fans are worshipping whoever wrote this.

I run the largest Andy fansite on the internet and I think that RealityRyan is a little...misinformed and biased. Ok, more than a little. Give people some credit

Welcome to MTF Ryan, drop by the Andy forum sometime. Just cuz I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm not happy to see another Andy fan.

yanchr
01-15-2004, 09:08 AM
RealityRyan, you...

Sorry, but I couldn't help :haha: :haha:

And again sorry I'm too lazy to give my points. :cool:

Never mind, you are sure to have your say here

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 12:47 PM
I run the largest Andy fansite on the internet and I think that RealityRyan is a little...misinformed and biased. Ok, more than a little. Give people some credit

Welcome to MTF Ryan, drop by the Andy forum sometime. Just cuz I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm not happy to see another Andy fan.

Well, you may diagree with me but, funny, Andre doesn't...

I thought this excerpt from Andre's latest Kooyong interview was relevant to this discussion. Of course, just because Andre says it doesn't mean you must agree, lol. ;)

Q: Looking at all the young players coming through now, do you think that any of these young players can emulate you and win not only the four majors but on top of that gold medals at the Olympics; maybe not in one year but in the coming years?

A: To win all the Slams and the gold medal?

Q: Yes.

A: Sure, it's possible. * It's very possible. * When you look at the talent that exists, you've got guys that can win on a lot of different surfaces. I think Rodger is a great example of a guy that has won on different surfaces. * It will be interesting to see how Andy goes on the clay but everything would suggest that his game is designed to win on clay as well so these are the young guys that are going to be at the top of the game for a long time so you throw in a competitor's heart and mind and some great things can happen.

This whole debate got really fired up because I said Roddick could win slams on clay. I think if Agassi says that he can, you can't argue that. Andre certainly isn't misinformed.

I believe alot people in this forum don't like A-Rod. I don't think that people in this forum want to call Andy Roddick the best tennis player in the world. Hey guy's take a look at the the rankings! :wavey: That is the only stat that counts. Where is Roddick(1)? Where is Roger (2)? So accept it, right now Roddick is the better, no, the best player.

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 12:54 PM
So if Roddick can win on clay (Agassi quote + Record = Wins on clay). He went to the Semi's of Wimbledon. He won the US. Also we went the Semi's of the Australian.

Doesn't that mean he can win on every surface?

And thus, dominate the sport...

I rest my case your honor...

:worship:

jtipson
01-15-2004, 01:11 PM
Ryan, at this point the rankings prove very little. The top three are separated by so few points that it does not support the argument that one (or any) of them are significantly better than the others, in terms of points accumulated over the last twelve months.

Recent quotes from Roddick himself show that he doesn't think he's the best player in the world right now, and most ex-player and media opinion that I read indicate that they think Federer holds that honour.

Andy might stretch his lead at number one in Melbourne; but he could easily end up at three on 1st February. Would you then agree that Federer and Ferrero are better players than Roddick?

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 01:25 PM
Ryan, at this point the rankings prove very little. The top three are separated by so few points that it does not support the argument that one (or any) of them are significantly better than the others, in terms of points accumulated over the last twelve months.

Recent quotes from Roddick himself show that he doesn't think he's the best player in the world right now, and most ex-player and media opinion that I read indicate that they think Federer holds that honour.

Andy might stretch his lead at number one in Melbourne; but he could easily end up at three on 1st February. Would you then agree that Federer and Ferrero are better players than Roddick?


That's the biggest load of bullshit I ever heard. I told you already Federer is more talented. That doesn't change the fact that Roddick is number 1, not Federer. Roddick is the best player right now. All you are doing is speculating. Obliviously Roddick has been more consistent in order to be ranked that high. Everything you said there is completely irrelevant. Go to ESPN.COM take a look at the points...Roddick has the most...until Roger Dodger has more...Roddick is the best tennis player in the world!

jtipson
01-15-2004, 01:25 PM
So if Roddick can win on clay (Agassi quote + Record = Wins on clay). He went to the Semi's of Wimbledon. He won the US. Also we went the Semi's of the Australian.

Doesn't that mean he can win on every surface?

And thus, dominate the sport...

I rest my case your honor...

:worship:


Agassi's opinion (as much as I respect that) added to Andy's "Record" does not equal "Wins on clay" and certainly does not mean that Roddick can win Roland Garros. If Andy's record included a clay TMS win, or even one instance where he got to the second week at the French, then that might be different. It hasn't happened yet. Let's see what he does this spring.

Federer however, has shown with his results that he can win big titles on all the surfaces you mentioned (clay: Hamburg, grass: Wimbledon, outdoor hard: TMC).

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 01:30 PM
Agassi's opinion (as much as I respect that) added to Andy's "Record" does not equal "Wins on clay" and certainly does not mean that Roddick can win Roland Garros. If Andy's record included a clay TMS win, or even one instance where he got to the second week at the French, then that might be different. It hasn't happened yet. Let's see what he does this spring.

Federer however, has shown with his results that he can win big titles on all the surfaces you mentioned (clay: Hamburg, grass: Wimbledon, outdoor hard: TMC).

Hey, why don't you say some more stuff that has been said before? Of course Roddick can win on clay and win RG. It's more than Agassi's quote. It's the game Roddick plays. The big forehand, the heavy topspin shots. Of course A-Rod can win on dirt. Accept that and move on...

jtipson
01-15-2004, 01:33 PM
That's the biggest load of bullshit I ever heard. I told you already Federer is more talented.

Thanks for the compliment. But at least you got one thing right.

That doesn't change the fact that Roddick is number 1, not Federer. Roddick is the best player right now.

Yes of course Roddick is number one right now, he's earned that (although it's only by 160 points, a very small margin). He got most of those points in 6 weeks in the US hard court season. He didn't start winning titles until May, and won the last won at the beginning of September. Roger won throughout the year.

Ranking points are *objective*. Whether a player is "the best" is *subjective*.

All you are doing is speculating.
Nope. I'm just stating my opinion. You're the one who is speculating, if you really think Roddick can win Roland Garros.

Fedex
01-15-2004, 01:48 PM
When will you learn?? Do you know how easy the draw would have to be for Roddick to win the French. Ferrero, Moya & almost all the spaniards will have had to be out with injury, Andre & Federer already out of the tournament, for roddick to have a fair chance. His weapons are neutralized on this surface(big serve, FH) At least Federer has won on several different surfaces, while Roddick's titles come from mostly hard court! ;)

Fedex
01-15-2004, 01:51 PM
The swiss army knife (Federer), has already sliced the white bread(Roddick) in all their meetings. So what makes you think the next will be much different, Andy cant have improved much!!

yanchr
01-15-2004, 01:58 PM
That's the biggest load of bullshit I ever heard. I told you already Federer is more talented. That doesn't change the fact that Roddick is number 1, not Federer. Roddick is the best player right now. All you are doing is speculating. Obliviously Roddick has been more consistent in order to be ranked that high. Everything you said there is completely irrelevant. Go to ESPN.COM take a look at the points...Roddick has the most...until Roger Dodger has more...Roddick is the best tennis player in the world!

That, especially the last sentence, is actually what I've expected from you, a totally ignorant die hard Roddick fan! Pls don't hide this fact by so-called putting energy and thoughts in your so-called points...

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 02:11 PM
That, especially the last sentence, is actually what I've expected from you, a totally ignorant die hard Roddick fan! Pls don't hide this fact by so-called putting energy and thoughts in your so-called points...

Well it's a fact. He's number 1...what else can you say. It's like saying the team that won the Super Bowl isn't the best team in the NFL. They may not have been the most talented team but, when you win the SB you are the best in all of football at that time. Roddick is the best right now. You can't argue the points...even though it is a small lead...win straight sets or got to 5 sets and a tie breaker on each set, it doesn't matter. A win is a win, just like number 1 is number 1. The best is the best. Etc is Etc...

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 02:14 PM
The swiss army knife (Federer), has already sliced the white bread(Roddick) in all their meetings. So what makes you think the next will be much different, Andy cant have improved much!!

Oh really? Maybe you should check your facts....Roddick beat Federer in the Tennis Master Series in Montreal. Why don't you think before you post? Why does Federer only have one win against Nalbandain, Roddick beat him, does that mean Roddick is, dare I say it, BETTER!!!

jtipson
01-15-2004, 02:20 PM
Well it's a fact. He's number 1...what else can you say. It's like saying the team that won the Super Bowl isn't the best team in the NFL. They may not have been the most talented team but, when you win the SB you are the best in all of football at that time. Roddick is the best right now. You can't argue the points...even though it is a small lead...win straight sets or got to 5 sets and a tie breaker on each set, it doesn't matter. A win is a win, just like number 1 is number 1. The best is the best. Etc is Etc...


Not a good analogy there, Ryan. Tennis' Super Bowl is the TMC, which Herr Federer won in some style, didn't he? And you're saying he's not the best?


By the way, I *don't* argue that Roddick is/isn't number one. He is. He deserves it...just as Ferrero deserved it in the autumn.

If you personally decide who's the best player by rankings alone, you'll agree that in autumn 2003, Juan Carlos was the best, won't you?

Fedex
01-15-2004, 02:24 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: Better?? Did you see the match. As ive said before if he didnt make so many df's &errors it would of been a straight sets victory. Yes, he is an ignorant rodduck fan, isnt he! Roger lost that match, Andy didnt win it!!!

jtipson
01-15-2004, 02:25 PM
Oh really? Maybe you should check your facts....Roddick beat Federer in the Tennis Master Series in Montreal. Why don't you think before you post? Why does Federer only have one win against Nalbandain, Roddick beat him, does that mean Roddick is, dare I say it, BETTER!!!

In their last match, Ryan, Nalbandian beat Roddick in straights. Did you look that up? Personally I expect that scenario to repeat a whole lot more.

Fedex
01-15-2004, 02:26 PM
He beat him once out of five times!!!! Yeah, so Federer has won what 80% of their matches. If Federer always plays well against Andy & dosnt make so many errors, as of now he would beat him!

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 02:38 PM
In their last match, Ryan, Nalbandian beat Roddick in straights. Did you look that up? Personally I expect that scenario to repeat a whole lot more.

Well a couple of things.... it wasn't like it was a spanking. Plus David put so much into winning that match that he reinjured his wrist. It's like he wasn't going to take a loss on any account. And we've seen that happen with people like Hewitt and even Andy sometimes, and when players do that they usually win. I expect them go back and forth throughout their long careers.

And RealityRyan, dude please chill out.

lsy
01-15-2004, 02:39 PM
man...all the benefits of doubts I had given to RRyan's analysis initially had all gone to the drain with these last few posts from him...BSRyan really sounds much better...

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 02:39 PM
In their last match, Ryan, Nalbandian beat Roddick in straights. Did you look that up? Personally I expect that scenario to repeat a whole lot more.

Dude...Roddick was burn out...no body even cares about that end of the year event. Everyone just wants to go home..

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 02:47 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: Better?? Did you see the match. As ive said before if he didnt make so many df's &errors it would of been a straight sets victory. Yes, he is an ignorant rodduck fan, isnt he! Roger lost that match, Andy didnt win it!!!

That's such BS...I could say the same things about the Roddick matches. As we all know Roddick had a set point or two that he blew in the first set of their meeting at Wimbledon. Rodger lost to Andy...accept that you are wrong. That comment you made before wasn't true...so why don't you go look at ESPN.com and check the rankings...where's Fed? Hey what happened to Fed last night? How will Fed fair with out a coach, if last night was any indication, that's not too good for him...

jtipson
01-15-2004, 02:47 PM
Actually the Nalbandian d Roddick match was in Basel, not Houston. (I'd say everyone was suffering from burnout by November, including Federer, by the way - he didn't even want to *go* to Houston.)

Anyway, you're quite right bunk, it was no pasting (7-5 7-5 iirc), and I agree their h2h will probably be close in the future.

Will be interesting to see what happens tonight; just hoping returning Andy's serve doesn't damage David's wrist again.

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 02:48 PM
And RealityRyan, dude please chill out.

It should say something that the local Andy fans are telling you to chill, man.

I second that motion

This is the reason that we get a bad name

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 02:50 PM
Actually the Nalbandian d Roddick match was in Basel, not Houston. (I'd say everyone was suffering from burnout by November, including Federer, by the way - he didn't even want to *go* to Houston.)

Anyway, you're quite right bunk, it was no pasting (7-5 7-5 iirc), and I agree their h2h will probably be close in the future.

Will be interesting to see what happens tonight; just hoping returning Andy's serve doesn't damage David's wrist again.

Yep I agree on all three accounts. Sounds like David did ok after the loooooong match with Taylor, who serves just as hard as Andy. Not that David would want to lose but I'm sure even fans of David would rather see him let up a little at the first sign of pain, considering it's only an exho, so that he'll be ok for AO.

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 02:52 PM
It should say something that the local Andy fans are telling you to chill, man.

I second that motion

This is the reason that we get a bad name

I don't understand you asking me to chill. I think no one took me seriously when I first started to post. Now that people are think like, wow, he knows something, this guy might be right. Now you say chill... oh by the way, this is my thread, thanks...

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 02:56 PM
I don't understand you asking me to chill. I think no one took me seriously when I first started to post. Now that people are think like, wow, he knows something, this guy might be right. Now you say chill... oh by the way, this is my thread, thanks...

dude....I'm a big Andy fan...I WISH you were right. If only. But you're not.

Don't worry, no one took you seriously then and they're not taking you seriously now.

You started it but it's a public forum...people reply, deal

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 02:58 PM
dude, I don't know if you noticed, but Andy isn't the most favorite player here. And many of us Andy fans work really hard to get a little respect and you're not really helping the cause much. Your words are falling on mostly deaf ears, however right (or completely misguided!!) they may be... but it should say something to you when a bunch of Andy fans think you're crossing the line, no?

lsy
01-15-2004, 03:01 PM
BSRyan, you're so living in your own world...it's exactly the opposite. It's more like people want to welcome you to this board and let you express your opinions initially but now??? Your points are so lame :eek: It seems like you're the one who can't even get the facts right.

But you're right, it's YOUR thread, keep living in your own world ;)

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:03 PM
He beat him once out of five times!!!! Yeah, so Federer has won what 80% of their matches. If Federer always plays well against Andy & dosnt make so many errors, as of now he would beat him!

Playing well and not making errors are what makes Tennis Champions. If Roger dodger can't do that, he's not a champ. You are running around in circles with your points. You say Federer is better than Roddick look he's lost to Roddick before. I say, yes he has. Then you say well, um, he is still is better because he didn't loose to Roddick, he just didn't play well.

Not playing well alot, means you are'nt that good. Roddick shows he can play at high level a lot, even thought his high level may not be as high as Rodgers’. I am not saying Federer isn't the most talented player on the tour, I said that. I told you he was. He needs to consistently perform, I told you that in my first post. Looking at what happened with him against Agassi last night, I would say he is the same old Federer....straight sets to Agassi (6-2, 6-4)..

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:03 PM
lol lsy, besides the fact that Andy is a few points ahead of Roger in the rankings currently.. the dude has no facts ;)

lsy
01-15-2004, 03:05 PM
don't worry bunk...I for one won't judge anybody here by their fan groups, it's all individual :p

But isn't it fun to have people like this once a while? Stir up some troubles and spice up the board? ;)

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:06 PM
RealityRyan what is your point??????????

and haha lsy, I suppose.. ;)

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 03:09 PM
don't worry bunk...I for one won't judge anybody here by their fan groups, it's all individual :p

But isn't it fun to have people like this once a while? Stir up some troubles and spice up the board? ;)


haha...well at least I'm not the only one that's amused

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:12 PM
I am sorry you think I made you look bad. It was not my intention. My intention was argue about Tennis. I love how you guys say you are wrong but, don't say what I am wrong about. Let's review the things I have said

- Roddick can win on every surface; we looked at the Roddick's record and took into account what AA said about him. I think we can clearly see from all of that, that Roddick can win on Clay(and at RG). If A-Rod can win on Clay then he can win on any surface. We already know he can win on the others.

- Then I said Federer needs to be more consistent. He is the most talented player on the tour but, right now he's not the best A-Rod is.
Looking at last nights results, and by admission of one of Federer's die hard fans we know Roger has to keep the unforced errors down and play well in order to be the best, and he hadn't done that.

lsy
01-15-2004, 03:12 PM
ya, especially when you have a bad day and have nowhere to release your frustrations, and bam there you go, someone like BSRyan here just gave you a "valid" reason to relief some anger... :haha:

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:15 PM
Ryan, many of those main points are fine. Of course Andy can win on every surface.... that doesn't equate to winning the French Open, though. While I think Andy is capable, he hasn't shown that thusfar and I can't see him winning RG for several years, and probably not ever. He did get to a semi of a clay TMS tourney, after all, and he's won several titles on red clay. Everyone knows he can play and do well on pretty much all the surfaces, but he needs to improve vast amounts on clay before he could ever be even remotely close to dominant. Not with all the amazing clay-courters there are right now. This is not news to anyone, nor is where Fed needs to improve - I'm sure his fans would say many of the same things you did. No errors, better competitive spirit, etc. Thanks captain obvious, we know.

As for Andy being the best, well, I hope your rose-colored glasses are comfortable.

jtipson
01-15-2004, 03:16 PM
Yes, I have to say the extremists add some sparkle to the debate - Ryan, you should have been here in the off-season!

Nobody is assuming that all Andy-fans are like him, (just as I hope no-one thinks that all Roger-fans are Roddick-haters, we're not!). Anyone reading this board for a while will see the broad range of opinions....that's what makes it fun.

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:19 PM
Ryan, many of those main points are fine. Of course Andy can win on ever surface.... that doesn't equate to winning the French Open, though. While I think Andy is capable, he hasn't shown that thusfar and I can't see him winning RG for several years, and probably not ever. He did get to a semi of a clay TMS tourney, after all, and he's won several titles on red clay. Everyone knows he can play and do well on pretty much all the surfaces. This is not news to anyone, nor is where fed needs to improve - I'm sure his fans would say many of the same things you did.

As for Andy being the best, well, I hope your rose-colored glasses are comfortable.

Well, I didn't say it was likely, I just said he would. I agree with most of what you have said there. Well my point about Andy being the best is by looking at the Rankings. Going by that, he is the best. The number 1 ranked player.

All that said, I don't understand the bashing I am taking for being supposedly "completely wrong". If you can see the logic in my points why can't anyone else.

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:21 PM
Yes, I have to say the extremists add some sparkle to the debate - Ryan, you should have been here in the off-season!

Nobody is assuming that all Andy-fans are like him, (just as I hope no-one thinks that all Roger-fans are Roddick-haters, we're not!). Anyone reading this board for a while will see the broad range of opinions....that's what makes it fun.

Thank you...thank you very much.

All I want is for my opinions to be respected, not necessarily agreed with.

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 03:22 PM
LOL lsy!!! I've been up all night working on my site so this is actually great therapy.

Ryan, you said that Andy is "the best" and other very bold statements that simply aren't true. We know it and he knows it. He's a top level player but he's not the best. It doesn't mean that he's a better player than his peers....especially Fed

As for Roger, he does need to be more consistent, I agree there, I think a lot of people do. That's not what we're taking issue with.

It's this shit about Andy being the best. Best is a very strong word. Learn when to use it.


...just out of curiosity, when are you predicting the big RG win??? :haha:

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:23 PM
haha...well at least I'm not the only one that's amused

You wanna be a Roddick fan how about you quit trolling my thread. You wanna be a Roddick fan why don't you say something instead of bashing...

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:24 PM
Going by rankings, Andy PLAYED the best over the past 52 weeks, by a little. That does not mean he IS the best. Men's tennis is so deep with talent right now I'd say it's hard to say who is the best amongst most of the top guys. They all have such different strengths and weaknesses that it's nearly impossible to compare them in any objective manner. The difference in the rankings at the end of 2003, one could argue, could have been different based on a couple of shots throughout the year that if they'd gone in instead of out or in the net or out instead of in, it would all have been different.

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:26 PM
LOL lsy!!! I've been up all night working on my site so this is actually great therapy.

Ryan, you said that Andy is "the best" and other very bold statements that simply aren't true. We know it and he knows it. He's a top level player but he's not the best. It doesn't mean that he's a better player than his peers....especially Fed

As for Roger, he does need to be more consistent, I agree there, I think a lot of people do. That's not what we're taking issue with.

It's this shit about Andy being the best. Best is a very strong word. Learn when to use it.


...just out of curiosity, when are you predicting the big RG win??? :mad:

The best, well if you are number you are the best. You are the champion if you are number 1. That is my definition. Right now, today, not next, week, month or year. Roddick is the best player in the world.
Can you see where I am coming from?

RG, hmm...I never said it would happen this year but it could. I am not good at making these predictions but why not this year. That's my answer, this year he will do it, and I will come in here when he does you will :worship: me...

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 03:29 PM
Going by rankings, Andy PLAYED the best...

Yep... making him the best player for those 52 weeks...

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 03:33 PM
You wanna be a Roddick fan how about you quit trolling my thread. You wanna be a Roddick fan why don't you say something instead of bashing...

:haha:

Do you run a rival fansite or something?? DAMN I love when people like you don't like me. It assures me of the fact that I'm doing something right. Bashing?? It's called reality, maybe you shoulda looked that word up before you stuck it in your screename. Andy can be good on clay...just not good enough to be winning RG in the near future. I'm enough of a fan to spend hours daily doing nothing but making a site that revolves around him. I'm also...here's the word again...realistic about what's likely right now. I can see the headlines now "Roddick Rules Roland Garros 2004 While Pig Flies Overhead"


Bunkie...we got a live one, lmao

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 04:11 PM
:haha:

Do you run a rival fansite or something?? DAMN I love when people like you don't like me. It assures me of the fact that I'm doing something right. Bashing?? It's called reality, maybe you shoulda looked that word up before you stuck it in your screename. Andy can be good on clay...just not good enough to be winning RG in the near future. I'm enough of a fan to spend hours daily doing nothing but making a site that revolves around him. I'm also...here's the word again...realistic about what's likely right now. I can see the headlines now "Roddick Rules Roland Garros 2004 While Pig Flies Overhead"


Bunkie...we got a live one, lmao

Alright, you are not a Roddick fan. If you were, and you knew alittle bit about Tennis, you would know that Roddick is all court player, with a forehand that has some heavy topspin and a great serve. He is not clay expert but, he skills certainly are good enough to win at RG.

Again, who are you to say what is realistic or not? I think if I came in here at the same time last year and said "Andy Roddick will be ranked number 1 by the end of the year" you guys would have similar reactions. You don't know what will happen at RG, it hasn't been played yet. So until it does and I am proven wrong, you don't have a leg to stand on.

jtipson
01-15-2004, 04:20 PM
The best, well if you are number you are the best. You are the champion if you are number 1. That is my definition.

If you'd have said it was your definition in the first place, I think a lot of people would have respected that straight away. The problem was, that it came across from your posts that this definition was the only possible interpretation of "best", and so invalidating others' opinions.

Andy to win RG2004? Risky choice! Well, anything's possible, but I think I'll go with Ferrero or Coria.

MisterQ
01-15-2004, 04:37 PM
5% of voters on the latest CNNSportsillustrated poll say that Andy is going to win the GRAND SLAM this year. Apparently it is more likely that he will win four than three. :lol:

How many majors will Andy Roddick win in 2004?
Zero **** 25% 485 votes
One **** 47% 899 votes
Two **** 20% 386 votes
Three **** 3% 55 votes
Four **** 5% 87 votes
Total: * 1912 votes

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 05:11 PM
If you'd have said it was your definition in the first place, I think a lot of people would have respected that straight away. The problem was, that it came across from your posts that this definition was the only possible interpretation of "best", and so invalidating others' opinions.

Andy to win RG2004? Risky choice! Well, anything's possible, but I think I'll go with Ferrero or Coria.

Yea, I just said that becuase that guy was being a jerk. haha, not likely I agree. His game isn't there yet, and playing on clay is another world...

but, why not? :devil:

RealityRyan
01-15-2004, 05:13 PM
5% of voters on the latest CNNSportsillustrated poll say that Andy is going to win the GRAND SLAM this year. Apparently it is more likely that he will win four than three. :lol:

How many majors will Andy Roddick win in 2004?
Zero **** 25% 485 votes
One **** 47% 899 votes
Two **** 20% 386 votes
Three **** 3% 55 votes
Four **** 5% 87 votes
Total: * 1912 votes

Hey thanks for supporting my points on here, even when everyone else was being a jerk.. :worship: you rock!!

MisterQ, Agassi is the appropriate picture for you becuase you act more level headed like him! :sport:

Flora3892
01-15-2004, 10:44 PM
hey ryan, i think the difference between u and the rest of the posters here is that u based ur opinion LARGELY on the rankings, and i don't know how long u've been following tennis, but most of the ppl on this board have followed tennis for a LONG time and learned that the rankings aren't exactly the most accurate way to rate a player... but everyone has their own opinion~

as for your opinion about big serve and forehand is the game to win RG, i don't think it will because clay slows down everything, so serves are easier to return, and powerful groundstrokes are easier to get to. Even commentators would say that. I remember a commentator saying that a high first serve percentage doesn't really make a big difference on clay~

but anywayz, i guess we'll see what happens at this year's RG~

WyverN
01-15-2004, 10:45 PM
Well, you may diagree with me but, funny, Andre doesn't...



This whole debate got really fired up because I said Roddick could win slams on clay. I think if Agassi says that he can, you can't argue that. Andre certainly isn't misinformed.

I believe alot people in this forum don't like A-Rod. I don't think that people in this forum want to call Andy Roddick the best tennis player in the world. Hey guy's take a look at the the rankings! :wavey: That is the only stat that counts. Where is Roddick(1)? Where is Roger (2)? So accept it, right now Roddick is the better, no, the best player.


Federer won 2 out of the 5 biggest titles last year so he had slightly the better year

Ma. Estefania
01-15-2004, 10:54 PM
Alright, you are not a Roddick fan. If you were, and you knew alittle bit about Tennis

Then now I have to be a Roddick's fan to know more about tennis? :scratch: I'll think about it.

Fedex
01-16-2004, 03:54 AM
Now Listen. I do have respect for a lot of Andy fans, Ryan, but youre starting to make me think twice!! Youre totally biased toward the guy and think rankings is the only way to judge a player. Oh and why is your username Reality Ryan, when you clearly dont live in reality :p

RealityRyan
01-16-2004, 12:43 PM
Then now I have to be a Roddick's fan to know more about tennis? :scratch: I'll think about it.

Read what I wrote, I said if you were a Roddick fan and you knew about tennis..

I didnt say then...

wow learn how to read..

RealityRyan
01-16-2004, 12:46 PM
Now Listen. I do have respect for a lot of Andy fans, Ryan, but youre starting to make me think twice!! Youre totally biased toward the guy and think rankings is the only way to judge a player. Oh and why is your username Reality Ryan, when you clearly dont live in reality :p

And I take it you are objective? :p I don't think so. You bias towards Federer, you are also very unclear about what points of mine you don't like. You come at me with all this anger but, you don't make any points. It's like you are hitting the ball really hard with alot of pace but, you are hitting right back at me. Try to put some thought behind what you are saying, I know Roger does...

RealityRyan
01-16-2004, 12:52 PM
hey ryan, i think the difference between u and the rest of the posters here is that u based ur opinion LARGELY on the rankings, and i don't know how long u've been following tennis, but most of the ppl on this board have followed tennis for a LONG time and learned that the rankings aren't exactly the most accurate way to rate a player... but everyone has their own opinion~

as for your opinion about big serve and forehand is the game to win RG, i don't think it will because clay slows down everything, so serves are easier to return, and powerful groundstrokes are easier to get to. Even commentators would say that. I remember a commentator saying that a high first serve percentage doesn't really make a big difference on clay~

but anywayz, i guess we'll see what happens at this year's RG~

Perhaps you misunderstood me, I meant a big kick serve. You know a serve that bounces and the spins off the court. Roddick has one of those. Actually he uses it quite effectively against Roger.

On the forehand I said A-Rod has a heavy topspin shot. Due to the nature of clay, balls take a more truer bounce or they bounce higher. A ball with alot of topspin on it bouces really high at a faster rate. This is a good thing...

Fedex
01-16-2004, 02:26 PM
Ha, i may be a little bised with Fed, but i'm not like you are with andy, and yet you call yourself Reality Ryan. So then tell me, other than the rankings is roddick better than, Federer. NOOOOOPE. Rankings arent everything. Federer has a better FH, Far better BH, Way better net skills, much better footwork etc.. Ive made many points where as you Ryan have failed to make any true points, about Andy & Federer!!!

star
01-16-2004, 02:30 PM
My answer to the thread question is : No

Deboogle!.
01-16-2004, 03:26 PM
Ha, i may be a little bised with Fed, but i'm not like you are with andy, and yet you call yourself Reality Ryan.

:spit:

that's the funniest damn thing I've read in a while.

RealityRyan
01-16-2004, 03:28 PM
Ha, i may be a little bised with Fed, but i'm not like you are with andy, and yet you call yourself Reality Ryan. So then tell me, other than the rankings is roddick better than, Federer. NOOOOOPE. Rankings arent everything. Federer has a better FH, Far better BH, Way better net skills, much better footwork etc.. Ive made many points where as you Ryan have failed to make any true points, about Andy & Federer!!!

Let's see here RealityRyan's player breakdown for Roger and Andy

(stars are out of 6)

Andy Roddick:

Forehand:* * * * *
I give Andy five stars on his forehand. He has the ability to end a point from anywhere on the court with it. The pace, and placement on his forehand is currently unmatched....

Backand:* * *
A definite weak point for Roddick but, he has learned to work around it and make it more consistent. Generally he will run around it if given the chance.

Serve:* * * * * *
The fastest serve in Tennis...when Roddick is hot...he won't be broken...nuff said..

Movement and Mobility:* * *
Well he's no Michael Chang but he moves pretty quickly when has too.

Focus/Mental Ability:* * * *
Certainly lacking in the Early part of Roddick's Career but, now he is able finish and make comebacks from behind without nerves getting to him.

Net Skills:* *
Not very Sampras like...but he can rush the net when he has too and has been able to mix it up as of recent times.

Roger Federer:

Forehand:* * * *
He hits a very fast, well-spun ball does Federer. You never know what to expect with this guy. He has both power and Finesse on this shot.

Backand:* * * * *
I think he has the male equivalent of J-H-H's backhand. The technique is very sound and just like on the forehand he has the power and the finesse.

Serve:* * * * *
A very dominating serving. This serve is what won Fed a grand slam last year. It's fast but, what kills you is the placement. He uses it so well to exploit opponent’s weaknesses.

Movement and Mobility:* * * * *
Very fast and very smooth moving around. Sometimes you wonder how he ran something down because he's sneaky fast.

Focus/Mental Ability:* * *
The biggest drawback to Federer's game is the way he sits in cruise control for alot of the match and doesn't really play his "A" until he is already down a set or two. He doesn't do this all the time but, as of recently it has become more and more prevalent.

Net Skills:* * * * * *
He has the ability to make those shot's like Sampras did at the net. He's not even a “S and V” Player but, he can do that. He makes some of the most ridiculous shots I have ever seen at the net bar none. Just out of this world when he is playing his "A" game at the net. The reflexes, and the natural ability is there. Just deadly with those drop shot...


Now Fedex, you can give me your chart if you disagree with my ratings.

RealityRyan
01-16-2004, 05:11 PM
:spit:

that's the funniest damn thing I've read in a while.

Read some more of Fedex's post. His lack of ability to create one point is truely astonishing. :p

tennis_chick89
01-16-2004, 07:04 PM
thanxfor the analysis RealityRyan!!
I'm a total A-Rod freak so sorry if I'm being all one sided here!!
Andre is a fantastic player and I never ever thought that he would win on clay court did you guyz? I knew dat Andy was gonna win ythe U.S.OPEN because he was so determined to do so! I also cried with him when he won it lol couldn't help myself I was soooo happy 4 him!!
As a true fan should right lol?
I was hoping that Rafael Nadal might win something this year because he played very well last year considering that he is only 17!
He is a very good player and I'm sure someday he will make into the top ten!! And on who's gonns win the Aussie Open it's gotta be either Andy or Ferrero! Even though I'm not really a fan of J.C. but he did win Roland Garros last year so..... could be him!!! But I'm def saying A-ROD 4 EVER!
byeeee!!!!!!
tennis_freak! :) :)

amethyst
01-16-2004, 08:55 PM
If I count right, RealityRyan, in your own analysis Federer has more stars overall than Roddick. So why are you so convinced that ONLY Roddick is able to dominate men´s tennis and Federer should be unable to do so? Btw I would rate Federers forehand with 5 stars, because he also has the ability to end a point with it from any court position.

I personally think that it´s very unlikely that ANYBODY will dominate men´s tennis for a longer period. There are so many talented players that domination can only happen by playing the "A-game" and be mentally focused ALL THE TIME, which is quite impossible. And it´s very hard even for a superbly talented player to comeback from injuries, which will occur to almost every player at some point.

Fedex
01-16-2004, 11:01 PM
Well, at least you make some points now! I agree with everything you say on Federer. His FH Should be 5 stars though, becuase he has a better down the line shot, can hit winners from anywhere on the court & can hit amazing winners on the run of his FH. Its better, overall, than Andy's. You'd notice that if someone hits a wide shot to his BH OR FH he has trouble getting it back into the court. BH Should be 2 starts(roddicks). Youve failed to mention th Return of Serve here. ;) His BH & Net skills can be out of this world sometimes. Agree with you there. Andy's Serve deserves 5 stars. Becuase the only person that could obtain a 6 star serve would be Sampras( 1st & 2nd serves). Best serve ever, but roddick is hard to break if his serve is on, but thats why you should of also posted the Return. Speed/footwork, i pretty much agree with you there. But overall whos more complete?? Its quite obvious.

RealityRyan
01-17-2004, 04:39 PM
Well, at least you make some points now! I agree with everything you say on Federer. His FH Should be 5 stars though, becuase he has a better down the line shot, can hit winners from anywhere on the court & can hit amazing winners on the run of his FH. Its better, overall, than Andy's. You'd notice that if someone hits a wide shot to his BH OR FH he has trouble getting it back into the court. BH Should be 2 starts(roddicks). Youve failed to mention th Return of Serve here. ;) His BH & Net skills can be out of this world sometimes. Agree with you there. Andy's Serve deserves 5 stars. Becuase the only person that could obtain a 6 star serve would be Sampras( 1st & 2nd serves). Best serve ever, but roddick is hard to break if his serve is on, but thats why you should of also posted the Return. Speed/footwork, i pretty much agree with you there. But overall whos more complete?? Its quite obvious.

Hey, I want to thank everyone that has posted on here. We got this thread to over a 1000 views. That's alot for a serious thread(ie one that isn't pictures or a name game). So thank you everyone for answering my thread.

Fedex, I am glad we are seeing eye to eye on things. Maybe you have alittle more respect for me now?

Yes, I have said all along Federer is the most talented player on the tour. He has the best ability, he is the best all around player and has the most raw talent. Looking at the chart you can see that. That said, I will also repeat what I have said all along, it's not the talent it's what you do with it. Andy's "A" game will beat Fed's "B" or "B+" game, Fed isn't that much better that he can cruise through Roddick. If Fed is at 95-100% no one is stopping him. He has to play up there consistanly. I think Roddick has been more consistant and the rankings show that. I think Roddick will be more consistant than Federer because he has Brad and the mind set to do so. That was proven to me when he played Nalbandian in the semi's of the US Open (by coming back...)

How about that A-Rod Fed Match?

RealityRyan
01-17-2004, 04:41 PM
If I count right, RealityRyan, in your own analysis Federer has more stars overall than Roddick. So why are you so convinced that ONLY Roddick is able to dominate men´s tennis and Federer should be unable to do so? Btw I would rate Federers forehand with 5 stars, because he also has the ability to end a point with it from any court position.

I personally think that it´s very unlikely that ANYBODY will dominate men´s tennis for a longer period. There are so many talented players that domination can only happen by playing the "A-game" and be mentally focused ALL THE TIME, which is quite impossible. And it´s very hard even for a superbly talented player to comeback from injuries, which will occur to almost every player at some point.


The table is set. All the players are at dinner. No one has moved to the head of the table yet. I assure you this won't last. Someone will dominate, if not Roddick than Fed, if not Fed, maybe JCF. Who knows but, someone always does...

Deboogle!.
01-17-2004, 07:16 PM
I hope no one will dominate. These guys are all too good and all too different to not trade majors back and forth for the next several years.

Fedex
01-17-2004, 08:04 PM
The dominating days of Pete Sampras are long over. I dont think we will see anyone dominate like he did.

RealityRyan
01-17-2004, 08:18 PM
The dominating days of Pete Sampras are long over. I dont think we will see anyone dominate like he did.

No, I agree. That was something very unique and special that won't ever happen again. I don't think Roddick can dominate like Pete (or Serena on the women's side.) There will always be a best player is what I am saying. There will always be one that is excepted to win unless upset. I think Roddick is going to step up to that is year...

RealityRyan
01-17-2004, 08:23 PM
I hope no one will dominate. These guys are all too good and all too different to not trade majors back and forth for the next several years.

It's boring you need a rivalry. You need Andre Vs. Pete, you need Connors vs. Johny Mac....

Life is borning when it's up in the air...

I want Roddick and Federer to go back and fourth like that...haha but, I want Roddick to win. I want the distance between Roddick and the rest of the players to be vast. So that when you think Andy Roddick you know, he's gonna be in the Semi's of any major. To me, that's the most domination he can do...and that's what I want to see.

Deboogle!.
01-17-2004, 08:51 PM
Andy is a long way from being in the final 4 of Roland Garros. He just is. Maybe he will surprise us but I think to expect that would be preposterous.

RealityRyan, you're holding Andy in such high esteem, I hope you won't be disappointed if he actually acts like a human and doesn't quite live up to what you're hoping for.

poundcatt
01-17-2004, 09:33 PM
I'm counting on Gonzo to get rid of America's Sweetheart in R1. Any help from AS's blisters or cramps much appreciated. Vamos Fernando!!

J. Corwin
01-18-2004, 01:23 AM
And on who's gonns win the Aussie Open it's gotta be either Andy or Ferrero! Even though I'm not really a fan of J.C. but he did win Roland Garros last year so..... could be him!!! But I'm def saying A-ROD 4 EVER!
byeeee!!!!!!
tennis_freak! :) :)


J.C. won RG last year, so that means he's gonna win the AO this year?

(don't mind me...I'm just giving ya a hard time;))

J. Corwin
01-18-2004, 01:31 AM
RealityRyan, I don't remember if I welcomed you to the board or not, so welcome.

Now, you say see him winning the French Open. Nothing wrong with that of course. After all, he never made it past the 3rd round of Wimbledon, and there he was in the semis last year. You just never know in tennis. What you have to understand is that is your opinion. Doing well on clay and winning smaller clay tournaments is a far cry from winning a 7 match, best-of-5 sets major on clay.

Next point. Andy is ranked #1 in the world because of his past accomplishments for the last 52 weeks. The ranking system is based on points accumluated..ie. what has been accomplished. It's not based on who is best or not. The rankings comes close to determining who's one of the best players, but there's no clear cut line of who is best. Andy himself acknowledges he doesn't feel head and shoulders above the rest, and clearly he just isn't. Does that make him unworthy of the #1 ranking? Of course not.

And actually, Roger's forehand is better than his backhand (IMO).

Deboogle!.
01-18-2004, 01:36 AM
Doing well on clay and winning smaller clay tournaments is a far cry from winning a 7 match, best-of-5 sets major on clay.


As my best friend would say with incredulous staccato..."I. did. not. know. that!"

:p

J. Corwin
01-18-2004, 01:42 AM
Federer won 2 out of the 5 biggest titles last year so he had slightly the better year

This is brought up often. I don't see Roger as having the slightly better year, but of course you're entitled to your opinion. Exaggerating a bit, but using your logic, a player that wins 2 of the 5 biggest titles and no single other match would have a better year than a player that wins 1 of the 5 biggest titles, and makes the finals of every single other tournament.

I feel the ranking justifies who had the better year, which is Andy, slightly. The ranking system is applied to every single player, and therefore everyone is under the same set of rules. Of course a win is a lot better than making the final, but the system awards a big bonus for the winner, which is seen in the disparity of points awarded between the finalist and the winner. Under this, Andy came out on top by 160 points. The system heavily weighs the grand slams. By how much the slams should be weighted more heavily is obviously subjective.

star
01-18-2004, 02:59 AM
And actually, Roger's forehand is better than his backhand (IMO).

I thought I was the only one with this opinion. Roger's backhand is pretty, but not as effective as his forehand, imo.

J. Corwin
01-18-2004, 04:02 AM
I thought I was the only one with this opinion. Roger's backhand is pretty, but not as effective as his forehand, imo.

Exactly.

Deboogle!.
01-18-2004, 04:13 AM
I think people get caught up in the fact that Roger's backhand is "pretty" and substitute that in for effectiveness or whatever.

WyverN
01-18-2004, 04:40 AM
This is brought up often. I don't see Roger as having the slightly better year, but of course you're entitled to your opinion. Exaggerating a bit, but using your logic, a player that wins 2 of the 5 biggest titles and no single other match would have a better year than a player that wins 1 of the 5 biggest titles, and makes the finals of every single other tournament.


Well consdiering how close they were
Similar number of titles
1 slam final each

I do feel Federer edged him out. You said rankings show who had the better year but I don't think it is always true.

Clijsters came close last year to #1 despite not winning a slam

WyverN
01-18-2004, 04:41 AM
I think people get caught up in the fact that Roger's backhand is "pretty" and substitute that in for effectiveness or whatever.

Well it depends if Roger is in form. It was certainly as effective as the forehand in Houston but it has been ugly in Kooyong.

WyverN
01-18-2004, 04:44 AM
As for RealityRyan he showed promise in the beginning but lost all credibility half way through the thread and should change his name to ImaginationRyan

Deboogle!.
01-18-2004, 05:47 AM
Well consdiering how close they were
Similar number of titles
1 slam final each

I do feel Federer edged him out. You said rankings show who had the better year but I don't think it is always true.

Clijsters came close last year to #1 despite not winning a slam

Well the women's rankings are done differently. Plus she reached 2 finals and 2 SF which is pretty impressive (not as impressive as Justine's 2 wins and 2 SF but impressive nonetheless).

The points b/w 1 and 2 were very close in the mens. So it becomes subjective. The way the ATP #s work and how tournaments are weighted, obviously, 1 slam, 2 slam SF and 2 TMS titles is better than 1 slam and TMC. You can say one thing and someone else can say another but it is what it is. the ATP puts more emphasis on slams and Andy did better than Roger in slams. Haven't we beaten this horse to death? lol

RealityRyan
01-18-2004, 05:50 AM
As for RealityRyan he showed promise in the beginning but lost all credibility half way through the thread and should change his name to ImaginationRyan

Wow...and you have said a whole lot. Holy crap....we have some great analysis here. Hey, why don't you stick to watching tennis and let us big boys do the talking about it ok.

I made fifty billion post on this!! My points were clear and consistant!!
I even made up a chart to show what I am talking about for god sakes!! If you still can't respect my points then you need to go sit in a corner with a dunce cap on...k k

You don't have to agree with them but, if you don't like them then atleast put up some kind of arguement. Not just, that will never happen because, that will never happen.

If I told you last year that Andy was going to be No.1 in the world and he will make it to the Semi's of two majors and win one. You would have had about the same reactions. I am aiming high for Roddick but, it's certainly not impossible...

:wavey:

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:42 AM
I didn't actually read the whole thread... only the first post. It's late, and this thread is long. Two comments:

- Ferrero: Will never win on grass, his game is too one-dimensional. J.C. has an inability to attack the net, which makes his game predictable and beatable. Unlike Agassi, who moved gradually in the court to finish points, Ferrero will almost never abandon his shelter; the basline. Also, with a weak serve like he has, it unlikely he could dominate on any surface but clay.

I might forgive you for this if you admit to not having seen Ferrero play since 1999.

- Federer: On the other hand, won't ever win on clay with a game based primarily on serve and volleying with those killer drop shots, you can forget about “ole' Paris” for Rodger. Rodger has also shown mental lapses as of late letting by not putting opponents away and or waiting until he is really behind to play his best game. It almost seems like he has cruise control on for the first 1 and a half sets. (Watch the Roddick vs. Federer T.M. Montreal match)

Federer won't ever win on clay? I'll forgive you for this if you admit that you had no idea he had won Hamburg, reached the Rome finals, and made a RG QF before.

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:45 AM
Read some more of Fedex's post. His lack of ability to create one point is truely astonishing. :p

True, that.

Hey, speaking of credibility... how come you mentioned Ferrero's "weak serve" (you really haven't seen him play since 1999, have you?), and not Andre's? Andre's serve isn't as good as Ferrero's, so if Ferrero's is weak, I'd be interested to hear what adjective you have for Andre's :)

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:47 AM
haha...well at least I'm not the only one that's amused
oh... you're never the only one who is amused... I even laugh when I'm a part of the arguement...

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:48 AM
Okay, so I just skimmed the past two pages or so. Let me sum up what I have read so far:

"Roger is Jesus!"

"Andy is Buddah!"

"Who's Ferrero?"

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:49 AM
I run the largest Andy fansite on the internet and I think that RealityRyan is a little...misinformed and biased. Ok, more than a little. Give people some credit

Welcome to MTF Ryan, drop by the Andy forum sometime. Just cuz I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm not happy to see another Andy fan.
Awww. I like you.

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 06:51 AM
You make some good points and Roddick would probably dominate if it wasn't for Federer but I believe Federer will stop Roddick dominating in the same way that Sampras stopped Agassi dominating.

I'm not a fan of the Sampras/Agassi=Federer/Roddick comparison that gets churned out every 5 minutes.

We'll see how it all pans out.

Hopefully it doesn't pan out like that ;)

WyverN
01-18-2004, 07:34 AM
The points b/w 1 and 2 were very close in the mens. So it becomes subjective. The way the ATP #s work and how tournaments are weighted, obviously, 1 slam, 2 slam SF and 2 TMS titles is better than 1 slam and TMC. You can say one thing and someone else can say another but it is what it is. the ATP puts more emphasis on slams and Andy did better than Roger in slams. Haven't we beaten this horse to death? lol


Yes so why reply and argue with my opinion? ;)

WyverN
01-18-2004, 07:41 AM
Wow...and you have said a whole lot. Holy crap....we have some great analysis here. Hey, why don't you stick to watching tennis and let us big boys do the talking about it ok.


Big boys do the talking? You must be talking about yourself and Fedex


I made fifty billion post on this!! My points were clear and consistant!!
I even made up a chart to show what I am talking about for god sakes!! If you still can't respect my points then you need to go sit in a corner with a dunce cap on...k k


Most of your points are totally wrong, inconsistent and biased.


You don't have to agree with them but, if you don't like them then atleast put up some kind of arguement. Not just, that will never happen because, that will never happen.


I did on the very first page but lost interest when you and Fedex decided to duel it out


If I told you last year that Andy was going to be No.1 in the world and he will make it to the Semi's of two majors and win one. You would have had about the same reactions. I am aiming high for Roddick but, it's certainly not impossible...


But you didn't say anything last year. Everyone can act like a genius in hindsight.
Make some predictions for AO and lets see if your correct.

RealityRyan
01-18-2004, 03:44 PM
Big boys do the talking? You must be talking about yourself and Fedex
Most of your points are totally wrong, inconsistent and biased.
I did on the very first page but lost interest when you and Fedex decided to duel it out
But you didn't say anything last year. Everyone can act like a genius in hindsight.
Make some predictions for AO and lets see if your correct.


Again, you don't make any points.

I.E. Roddick won't win on clay because his baseline game isn't strong enough, would be a valid point. You just say I am wrong and biased and that is niether here or there. You don't make any points, that's why I get frustrated with people like you. You come in a thread and jump on a bandwaggon. So don't knock what I am saying unless you can create some points.

My point was not that I am saying that in hindsight, you fool. You confused what I said. I am saying you can't bash what I am saying just because you don't like it or it doesn't seem logical to you. Predictions are just educated guesses and anything can happen in year.

Stop asking me things I have already answered. Go to the AO prediction thread and see what I wrote.

Chloe le Bopper
01-18-2004, 04:45 PM
Reality... you claim that you're all about having a point and backing it up, and blah blah blah. So when are you going to address my comments? ;)

WyverN
01-19-2004, 01:46 AM
And address my comments from page 1

WyverN
01-19-2004, 01:52 AM
You don't make any points, that's why I get frustrated with people like you. You come in a thread and jump on a bandwaggon.

And then there are people like you who choose a player and can see no wrong in them just because they are your favourite.

One of your points was that Roddick has a baseline game to rival clay courters and Federer doesn't, how can I argue with such absurdity?

Based on some of the claims you have made I hope you are posting from a mental institution during lunch breaks.

Prophetic
01-19-2004, 03:02 AM
Awww. I like you.


AWWW. Thanks, lol

Ryan: Some of us don't bother to spend time making points for a very simple reason...you're not worth the effort and time to type it out. You're biased and stubborn so arguing with logic is pointless.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 02:26 PM
AWWW. Thanks, lol

Ryan: Some of us don't bother to spend time making points for a very simple reason...you're not worth the effort and time to type it out. You're biased and stubborn so arguing with logic is pointless.

You can't read can you?

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 02:27 PM
Reality... you claim that you're all about having a point and backing it up, and blah blah blah. So when are you going to address my comments? ;)

What comments are those? You didn't say anything new! You just gave a thread re-cap. Say something new and I will answer. I refuse to address the same questions over and over..

Prophetic
01-19-2004, 02:28 PM
You can't read can you?


I read just fine...but fortunately for me, nothing you say is memorable.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 02:31 PM
And then there are people like you who choose a player and can see no wrong in them just because they are your favourite.

One of your points was that Roddick has a baseline game to rival clay courters and Federer doesn't, how can I argue with such absurdity?

Based on some of the claims you have made I hope you are posting from a mental institution during lunch breaks.


Well actually that's backed up by Andre Agassi. So if you wanna go read his quote. Maybe he doesn't know anything about tennis either? Yea he spends his time in mental institutions too...

This is probably why you don't make points against me. Cuz, I slam them back down at you like a ball that wasn't lobbed high enough... :lol:

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 02:34 PM
I read just fine...but fortunately for me, nothing you say is memorable.

Wow responded quickly to that. Well if you can read, why do you keep saying the same things. I keep giving you the same answers and you just keep on repeating yourself. Like you don't even read what I am saying.

Roddick's game is good enough to win on clay. By that I mean RG.

Out of the two(Roddick and Fed), Roddick is the more consistant player.

These are the only two points I have really made, and people fight me so hard on them...yourself included

WyverN
01-19-2004, 02:44 PM
Well actually that's backed up by Andre Agassi. So if you wanna go read his quote. Maybe he doesn't know anything about tennis either? Yea he spends his time in mental institutions too...


Since when have tennis players said anything but the biggest compliments each other?

I can find you a dozen tennis greats saying similar things about Federer, including Agassi

you still havent replied to my points on page 1

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 03:01 PM
Roddick could dominate but he has plenty of weaknesses - a unreliable backhand when put under pressure, lack of instinct regarding net game, lack of a B game when he is being outplayed.

Put it this way - if Sampras couldn't dominate on all 4 surfaces then Roddick wont.

Sampras's game couldn't transfter. If he was a baseline or all court player with the same talent, I assue you he could have.

The backhand is not as bad as some people would think. They would say it really bad. It's kinda become a strong point because eveyone thinks it's weak and they target it. Because of this, at some points durning the summer he had more winners on his backhand side than forehand side and less unforced on the backhand than forehand. That really isn't a big weakness in my eyes. Now A-Rod return of serve need work...I will just concede that...

The net game really isn't his style. He goes up there every now and then and mixes it up. He's no "Pistol Pete" at the net but, he win points up there when he needs them. Watch the U.S. Match against Malisse...

By a lack of "B" game when being outplayed, do you mean Roddick should switch up his game style, stragtegy, and play to be more effective? That is surest way of loosing. You need to go out there and play your best game. You put what you do best against what they do best. Yea, you can make adjustments but, A-Rod can clearly do that watch the semi-final match against David Nalbandain, that was adjustments at the key moments.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 03:02 PM
Since when have tennis players said anything but the biggest compliments each other?

I can find you a dozen tennis greats saying similar things about Federer, including Agassi

you still havent replied to my points on page 1

AA didn't say he was good or anything. He say he can win at RG and on clay...theres a difference in my eyes...

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 03:10 PM
What comments are those? You didn't say anything new! You just gave a thread re-cap. Say something new and I will answer. I refuse to address the same questions over and over..
I wanted to know if you'd seen Ferrero since 1999 ;)

Because if you have, and still think that his serve is a gigantic liability, then you don't know your tennis ;) Which is fine. Just top pretending you do ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 03:11 PM
AA didn't say he was good or anything. He say he can win at RG and on clay...theres a difference in my eyes...
ARE YOU A COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD?

I mean... can you read?

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 03:14 PM
Roddick's game is good enough to win on clay. By that I mean RG.

:lol:

You're clearly confused. Roddick can win every slam EXCEPT Roland Garros. This has been said time and time again, but I don't think that you're getting it. The only way Roddick wins Roland Garros is if his draw consists of Davydenko, Robredo, Malisse, Blake, and a few qualifiers who serve and volley. Even then, I sort of like Davydenko's chances this time ;)

Out of the two(Roddick and Fed), Roddick is the more consistant player.


This is true, at the present time, though.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 09:12 PM
ARE YOU A COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD?

I mean... can you read?

Alright, you are a dumbfuck!

You need to quit typing. Just go sit somewhere...for awhile

Before you speak read earlier on in the thread...if you did you would have seen this...

Q: Looking at all the young players coming through now, do you think that any of these young players can emulate you and win not only the four majors but on top of that gold medals at the Olympics; maybe not in one year but in the coming years?

A: To win all the Slams and the gold medal?

Q: Yes.

A: Sure, it's possible. * It's very possible. * When you look at the talent that exists, you've got guys that can win on a lot of different surfaces. I think Rodger is a great example of a guy that has won on different surfaces. * It will be interesting to see how Andy goes on the clay but everything would suggest that his game is designed to win on clay as well so these are the young guys that are going to be at the top of the game for a long time so you throw in a competitor's heart and mind and some great things can happen.

which is was what I making a reference to. So, now that you have read it. Shut up about it..

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 09:21 PM
:sad:

You're clearly confused. Roddick can win every slam EXCEPT Roland Garros. This has been said time and time again, but I don't think that you're getting it. The only way Roddick wins Roland Garros is if his draw consists of Davydenko, Robredo, Malisse, Blake, and a few qualifiers who serve and volley. Even then, I sort of like Davydenko's chances this time ;)



This is true, at the present time, though.

How can you say that? How can anyone say that? You don't even know what Roddick's potential is on clay to say that he can't win. If you look at his record from last year on clay (earlier in the post), it's the same as Rogers. He even got one title last year on it. What I said before and alot of people mistook was, people thought AA couldn't do but, he did.

Look at Roddick's game before you wanna talk. The forehand he has is hit with heavy topspin. This makes the best weapon on clay. His kick serve is deadly on hard court. With the kinda bounce that you get on clay it will be hard to defend. His power serve will be dimished but, not neutrilzed. You guys make clay seem like playing on mars, it's not.

AR's game is not Sampras's game. Get over that. AR is an all court player and all court players with similiar styles as A-Rod's have won at RG..

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 09:30 PM
I wanted to know if you'd seen Ferrero since 1999 ;)

Because if you have, and still think that his serve is a gigantic liability, then you don't know your tennis ;) Which is fine. Just top pretending you do ;)

Ferrero's serve...mhhhmmm...no..

It doesn't suck, it's just not a weapon. It doesn't have the placement or speed of a Roddick, Federer, many others type of serve. His serve was really bad before, now it's mediocre. I don't go around claiming A-Rod has a backhand like J-H-H just because he worked on it.

Think about it....

To say I don't know anything about Tennis is a giant leap for some one like you who rarely makes points and just picks fights with me.

My tennis knowledge is not as vast as some people on this board. It's just we are all opinionated people. People say I am biased but, it's just because I say what they don't want to hear, and that’s the truth...that's why they call me Reality...bitch..

Sjengster
01-19-2004, 09:40 PM
Ferrero's serve is certainly patchy at times, and the double faults still let him down occasionally, but I have seen him serve 12 aces in a single set, against Gaudio in Cincinnati... he somehow managed to lose the match in three, though. The whole point about his serve is that while he can't slam down the aces he can get some cheap points and set up the next shot with it - especially on clay, where his favoured kick serve out wide yields a short midcourt reply which he can then pound with the forehand. His serve was very effective at Wimbledon last year against Escude and Sargsian.

Fedex
01-19-2004, 09:41 PM
Andy is NOT an all court player. An all court player is someone like Edberg or Federer & Andy cant compare to them. Now look at his record in european clay!!! His major weapons are the serve & FH, both of which are neautral on clay. Roddick dosnt have great speed which is something you NEED to succeed on clay. Its also about the mental willingness to grind it out longer. It would seem like the FH would be a big weapon on clay but it really isnt. Drop shots are another good thing you need to have in youre arensal to succeed. Pete was much more of an all court player than Roddick, in addition to his superb volleys he had a good ground stroke game. Andy will improve in these areas to help his game on clay, but right now its laughable to say Andy can win RG. Why is clay serena's worst surface, becuase on this surface you can run down her powerful strokes & Return them. Dont call Becky that. You will have a serious war if you do!

Sjengster
01-19-2004, 09:42 PM
Ferrero's serve...mhhhmmm...no..

It doesn't suck, it's just not a weapon. It doesn't have the placement or speed of a Roddick, Federer, many others type of serve. His serve was really bad before, now it's mediocre. I don't go around claiming A-Rod has a backhand like J-H-H just because he worked on it.

Think about it....

To say I don't know anything about Tennis is a giant leap for some one like you who rarely makes points and just picks fights with me.

My tennis knowledge is not as vast as some people on this board. It's just we are all opinionated people. People say I am biased but, it's just because I say what they don't want to hear, and that’s the truth...that's why they call me Reality...bitch..

"My tennis knowledge isn't as vast as others... I say what they don't want to hear, and that's the truth." It's very difficult to correlate those two statements. Since you just admitted that there are others who are better informed than you, can you refrain from suggesting that your word is the gospel on tennis?

Fedex
01-19-2004, 09:44 PM
Of course his serve was effective at Wimbly. Some people just dont understand what it takes to win on clay. Ask guys like Guga, & Ferrero, about the kind of weapons you need on clay & whether THEY think Andy can win RG or ANY major european clay tournament!

Deboogle!.
01-19-2004, 10:12 PM
Hasn't Ferrero's serve been called really underrated by a lot of people? I'd say so.

And Ryan, come one.... let's be realistic here. Andy doesn't have a complete all-court game yet. Did you see the match last night? He messed up a few pretty easy volleys that a better net player would've made. But not to say he's not improving, because he's made VAST improvements. His returning last night was by far better than what I remember, and I think that's key for him, but as of yet he is not an "all-court" player.

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 10:48 PM
Ferrero's serve...mhhhmmm...no..

It doesn't suck, it's just not a weapon. It doesn't have the placement or speed of a Roddick, Federer, many others type of serve. His serve was really bad before, now it's mediocre. I don't go around claiming A-Rod has a backhand like J-H-H just because he worked on it.

Think about it....

To say I don't know anything about Tennis is a giant leap for some one like you who rarely makes points and just picks fights with me.

My tennis knowledge is not as vast as some people on this board. It's just we are all opinionated people. People say I am biased but, it's just because I say what they don't want to hear, and that’s the truth...that's why they call me Reality...bitch..
Bitch? *sniff*

I'm sorry, I thought that you were here to make constructive points? ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 10:56 PM
How can you say that? How can anyone say that? You don't even know what Roddick's potential is on clay to say that he can't win.

Oh, but you do know what it is?

If you look at his record from last year on clay (earlier in the post), it's the same as Rogers. He even got one title last year on it. What I said before and alot of people mistook was, people thought AA couldn't do but, he did.

Roddick's clay record is decent because he plays mickey mouse events. I'm sorry, but beating Nikolai Davydenko is NOT indicative of Roland Garros success. Wayne Arthurs and Sargis Sargsian would likely agree with me.

Roddick's best clay wins EVER are Robredo (his pigeon), Davydenko, and Coria (but only in name, since Coria had been back on tour for a whole two months at this point). So spare me the shit about his great clay record. Take a look at who he's actually beaten on the surface.

Roddick has room for improvement on clay. When he does improve and actually beats a "name" on clay... I'll pay his some respect. Until then, he doesn't deserve any. He can beat run of the mill players on clay, and is made to look like one himself when he plays decent clay players (Hrbaty, for example).

Look at Roddick's game before you wanna talk. The forehand he has is hit with heavy topspin. This makes the best weapon on clay. His kick serve is deadly on hard court. With the kinda bounce that you get on clay it will be hard to defend. His power serve will be dimished but, not neutrilzed. You guys make clay seem like playing on mars, it's not.


Clay takes a lot off Roddick's serve, and off his forehand. His two main strengths. You dont' have to be a tennis fan for 5 minutes to realise this.

As for other players similar to Roddick having won Roland Garros. Um? WHAT? Examples, please. I'd love to hear about all these players with Roddick-type games who have won Roland Garros, because I obviously haven't been paying very much attention.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 11:11 PM
Andy is NOT an all court player. An all court player is someone like Edberg or Federer & Andy cant compare to them. Now look at his record in european clay!!! His major weapons are the serve & FH, both of which are neautral on clay. Roddick dosnt have great speed which is something you NEED to succeed on clay. Its also about the mental willingness to grind it out longer. It would seem like the FH would be a big weapon on clay but it really isnt. Drop shots are another good thing you need to have in youre arensal to succeed. Pete was much more of an all court player than Roddick, in addition to his superb volleys he had a good ground stroke game. Andy will improve in these areas to help his game on clay, but right now its laughable to say Andy can win RG. Why is clay serena's worst surface, becuase on this surface you can run down her powerful strokes & Return them. Dont call Becky that. You will have a serious war if you do!

No I agree but, you can't really call him a "Serve and Volly" player or a baseline...so what is he then? A serve and forehander??? haha no, he's all court...

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 11:13 PM
Bitch? *sniff*

I'm sorry, I thought that you were here to make constructive points? ;)

No you started that, I have done nothing but, make points. You are the one that called me a retard. haha funny part about that is. After I got you the quote that you called me a retard for. You didn't even address it because you know you are dead wrong..

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 11:14 PM
Of course his serve was effective at Wimbly. Some people just dont understand what it takes to win on clay. Ask guys like Guga, & Ferrero, about the kind of weapons you need on clay & whether THEY think Andy can win RG or ANY major european clay tournament!

I see, so Agassi must not understand either Fed...

Deboogle!.
01-19-2004, 11:17 PM
At this point, Andy is a baseliner still. That is what I would call him.

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 11:24 PM
Oh, but you do know what it is?



Roddick's clay record is decent because he plays mickey mouse events. I'm sorry, but beating Nikolai Davydenko is NOT indicative of Roland Garros success. Wayne Arthurs and Sargis Sargsian would likely agree with me.

Roddick's best clay wins EVER are Robredo (his pigeon), Davydenko, and Coria (but only in name, since Coria had been back on tour for a whole two months at this point). So spare me the shit about his great clay record. Take a look at who he's actually beaten on the surface.

Roddick has room for improvement on clay. When he does improve and actually beats a "name" on clay... I'll pay his some respect. Until then, he doesn't deserve any. He can beat run of the mill players on clay, and is made to look like one himself when he plays decent clay players (Hrbaty, for example).



Clay takes a lot off Roddick's serve, and off his forehand. His two main strengths. You dont' have to be a tennis fan for 5 minutes to realise this.

As for other players similar to Roddick having won Roland Garros. Um? WHAT? Examples, please. I'd love to hear about all these players with Roddick-type games who have won Roland Garros, because I obviously haven't been paying very much attention.

Hey listen a win is a win is win here sister. Being able to perform is being able to perform. A-Rod beat Coria? Well last time I checked he was a clay master...listen a record is a record is a record. If Roddick really sucked as bad on it as all of you say. He wouldn't have beaten those people that he did to win a title.

Let's take a look at some past Clay champs that weren't clay masters....
Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Yannick Noah and others. So don't give me that, you have to be clay master to win at RG. Yes and a few of those guys had similar games to A-Rod's. A big serve and forehand. So you really can't say that anymore can you?

RealityRyan
01-19-2004, 11:28 PM
At this point, Andy is a baseliner still. That is what I would call him.

Yea and oh man, a baseline has never won at RG before. Not a baseliner.....haha you guys keep changing your points and just saying whatever just to argue me.... :devil:

Chloe le Bopper
01-19-2004, 11:49 PM
Hey listen a win is a win is win here sister. Being able to perform is being able to perform. A-Rod beat Coria? Well last time I checked he was a clay master...listen a record is a record is a record.

YOu obviously missed the point about that Coria win. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, because it's obvious to EVERYBODY else who will ever read this thread.

Yes, a win is a win. My point was that a win in Houston does not a win at Roland Garros make... what was your point? Did you have one?

If Roddick really sucked as bad on it as all of you say. He wouldn't have beaten those people that he did to win a title.

You apparently can't read. I never said that Roddick sucked on clay.

Let's take a look at some past Clay champs that weren't clay masters....
Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Michael Chang, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Bjorn Borg, Ivan Lendl, Yannick Noah and others.

Escuse me? Bjorg was not a clay master? Lendl was not one either? God. Quit embarassing yourself!


So don't give me that, you have to be clay master to win at RG. Yes and a few of those guys had similar games to A-Rod's. A big serve and forehand. So you really can't say that anymore can you?

Which of those guys had games similar to Roddick's? Chang? Borg? Lendl? Courier?

Geez. I'm starting to feel kind of bad for you.

Deboogle!.
01-19-2004, 11:53 PM
Ryan....... SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Sjengster
01-19-2004, 11:53 PM
Courier's is probably the only one that approaches Roddick, and his movement and stamina were somewhat better I suspect... Becca, anyone who declares with certainty that Borg and Lendl weren't clay masters isn't worth bothering with. Next thing you know he'll be saying that Muster was an underrated talent on grass and that those 40+ clay tournament wins were just a fluke.

Fedex
01-19-2004, 11:55 PM
Ok Ryan, Anyone who wins a GS Tournament 6 times is obviously a master at the surface!!

J. Corwin
01-20-2004, 01:24 AM
Ryan, you were OK with your clay master ranting until you mentioned Bjorn and Ivan. ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 01:41 AM
Courier's is probably the only one that approaches Roddick, and his movement and stamina were somewhat better I suspect... Becca, anyone who declares with certainty that Borg and Lendl weren't clay masters isn't worth bothering with. Next thing you know he'll be saying that Muster was an underrated talent on grass and that those 40+ clay tournament wins were just a fluke.
:lol:

WyverN
01-20-2004, 03:01 AM
1. Borg is the greatest clay courter ever

2. Andre said Andy could win RG (I agree with that and he may well win 1 RG in his career) but that certainly does not mean he is going to dominate clay, all the people saying Andy can't win RG are wrong - afterall Verkerk came within 1 match

3. Muster was a very hard worker and obviously racked in the clay *minor* titles but if he is such a great clay courter how come he only has one French open?

Prophetic
01-20-2004, 04:50 AM
Ryan....... SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:haha:

for some reason that really cracked me up

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 04:50 AM
Seeing as Muster was in a serious accident that threatened his career, I would say that his mere "one" Roland Garros title is pretty damn impressive.

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 05:01 AM
:haha:

for some reason that really cracked me up

:D I aim to amuse

Dirk
01-20-2004, 05:04 AM
Muster won alot of clay masters (anyone knows how many?). I wouldn't call them little caly titles. Andy sure the hell will never win one.

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 05:05 AM
ok see that's where you become just as bad as RealityRyan. How can you say with such confidence that Andy will never win a TMS clay title? Come on. You can't say 'never' about anything in tennis.

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 05:18 AM
ok see that's where you become just as bad as RealityRyan. How can you say with such confidence that Andy will never win a TMS clay title? Come on. You can't say 'never' about anything in tennis.
Indeed.

I dont' see why it's impossible for Roddick to win a Masters Series on clay. I would bet against it happening, but it's not impossible that he'll get a soft draw and favourable conditions.

Yes, the same applies to Roland Garros. I just consider it so highly unlikely that it's almost not worth discussing.

I think that Andy winning Roland Garros is as likely as Ferrero winning Wimbledon :)... he's slighyl more likely to win a clay MS though, Andy is.

Dirk
01-20-2004, 05:43 AM
Ok so I went overboard. Still its very unlikely that he will win. He would need so many euro clay guys injuried to get one. Andy just doesn't play well enough on it. I have no doubt that Andy might make a few qrts at RG but I can't see him ever winning it. Too many clay experts to contend with.

WyverN
01-20-2004, 06:06 AM
Seeing as Muster was in a serious accident that threatened his career, I would say that his mere "one" Roland Garros title is pretty damn impressive.

he still should have one more then one French considering he dominated clay for a while

WyverN
01-20-2004, 06:08 AM
Ok so I went overboard. Still its very unlikely that he will win. He would need so many euro clay guys injuried to get one. Andy just doesn't play well enough on it. I have no doubt that Andy might make a few qrts at RG but I can't see him ever winning it. Too many clay experts to contend with.

Yes lots of clay experts but Ferrero is the only reliable one. Afterall Verkerk beat Coria in the semis last year in 4 sets, a guy many consider to be the second best clay courter.

If Verkerk can beat a clay expert in the semis of a clay slam why can't Roddick?

undomiele
01-20-2004, 06:22 AM
Because Coria was still stepping up his game. His red-hot streak on the clay circuit only came after Roland Garros and he went right on improving. He started doing well on other courts and made it to the QF's of the US Open. I think Verkerk beat him at a very auspicious moment when Coria wasn't used to playing big servers who have adapted their games to clay. Besides, Verkerk considers clay to be his favourite surface.

I have to go with Dirk on this one. Roddicks mindset thus far just doesnt match up well with the kind of patience and strategy you need to set up points on clay. He just doesn't like the surface. Confident and at his best, he could get past some decent players with his game but would definitely get shot down by the top guys like Costa, Ferrero and Coria (and a whole bunch of other great clay court playing guys --there are a lot of them out there). But I don't think he's even all that interested in wanting to "dominate" clay considering he doesn't like spending much of the clay season in Europe.

As for the TMS clay thing, I still think it would be very hard for him to win. He's just not a serious contender on clay. Period. The field's deep and there are too many floaters (lNadal is looking pretty scary right now for example).

He should just stick to getting past the 1st round at RG for now.

undomiele
01-20-2004, 06:28 AM
I was talking about this with a friend of mine the other day. Would you guys say clay is the most played-on surface in the world today for the general public??

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 05:36 PM
YOu obviously missed the point about that Coria win. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, because it's obvious to EVERYBODY else who will ever read this thread.
Yes, a win is a win. My point was that a win in Houston does not a win at Roland Garros make... what was your point? Did you have one?
You apparently can't read. I never said that Roddick sucked on clay.
Escuse me? Bjorg was not a clay master? Lendl was not one either? God. Quit embarassing yourself!
Which of those guys had games similar to Roddick's? Chang? Borg? Lendl? Courier?
Geez. I'm starting to feel kind of bad for you.

Yea, he beat Coria, I don't care what you say, I win is a win. My point is simply that you said he never beat anyone good on clay. You are wrong, you know you are. Yea, you kinda did say Roddick sucked on clay "he only wins the Mickey Mouse tournements" "He will never beat anyone good" - That was you...and if that's not saying he sucks without saying the words sucks, I don't know what is...

Bjong Borg and Lendl were dominant on alot of surfaces and won other titles besides clay thats my point. So did Chang, Courier, Agassi, and Y-
Man...These guys won everywhere, not just on clay. You guys have been saying the only people who win on clay are clay experts(Guga, Moya, JCF, Coria, Muster) not true. Good players win on all surfaces(sorry Pete)...if you look at the Womens game this is true over there as well, with Serena and JHH both winning on Hard Court and Clay, Serena on all of them. The examples I gave you were examples of people who were successful on all surfaces (yes, I know, Chang never won another major but, he made it to the finals of the AUS)...

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 05:43 PM
Ryan dude, GIVE IT UP!

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 06:12 PM
Ryan dude, GIVE IT UP!

Give what up? Give up the opinion that Roddick can win at RG, no that's my opinion. If you don't like it, take a look at who's thread you are in...thanks...it seems like the more and more evidence I bring up to you people the more and more pissed you get. Like how dare I, defy you guys that know so much. I won't give that up, I will argue you my point til Roddick wins at RG or retires. You guys need to open yourself up to others opinions.

Are you going to tell me that Borg and Lendl weren't dominant on other surfaces? There games are'nt anything like Roddicks I never said they were but, they did dominate on alot of surfaces, they weren't just a master of one. That's what I am argueing against here, you can't say that the only people who win the french are just clay masters. That's not true and that's what the general opinion has been.

Lendl has won both French and U.S. Opens 3 times and Australian twice.

Borg won 6 French Opens and 5 straight Wimbledons.

Facts showing that these guys dominated not just on clay but, on other surfaces too...

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 06:20 PM
Yes lots of clay experts but Ferrero is the only reliable one. Afterall Verkerk beat Coria in the semis last year in 4 sets, a guy many consider to be the second best clay courter.

If Verkerk can beat a clay expert in the semis of a clay slam why can't Roddick?

Hey Hey, Wyvern dude. Supporting one of my points.... :worship:

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 06:28 PM
Because Coria was still stepping up his game. His red-hot streak on the clay circuit only came after Roland Garros and he went right on improving. He started doing well on other courts and made it to the QF's of the US Open. I think Verkerk beat him at a very auspicious moment when Coria wasn't used to playing big servers who have adapted their games to clay. Besides, Verkerk considers clay to be his favourite surface.

I have to go with Dirk on this one. Roddicks mindset thus far just doesnt match up well with the kind of patience and strategy you need to set up points on clay. He just doesn't like the surface. Confident and at his best, he could get past some decent players with his game but would definitely get shot down by the top guys like Costa, Ferrero and Coria (and a whole bunch of other great clay court playing guys --there are a lot of them out there). But I don't think he's even all that interested in wanting to "dominate" clay considering he doesn't like spending much of the clay season in Europe.

As for the TMS clay thing, I still think it would be very hard for him to win. He's just not a serious contender on clay. Period. The field's deep and there are too many floaters (lNadal is looking pretty scary right now for example).

He should just stick to getting past the 1st round at RG for now.

What? Yea right. Roddick has the mindset. Yea the points tend to run longer, and there is a different strategy on clay but, Roddick is no Fernando Gonzalez(who I like, btw) out there just swinging away at the ball. He knows how to play a smart game, not just a powerful one. Do you think A-Rod is dumb or sumthing? Like you need to be extra intellgent to win at RG? Totally off that point but, why does Serena win on clay? Why did JHH win on clay? They weren't just these clay specialists..they dominate everywhere. I think a good baseliner/all-court player can win anywhere, that's the truth..

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 07:27 PM
Ryan, I'm on your side. I am an Andy fan, but you're overboard. Your points aren't making sense anymore. Your main overarching points do - that Andy can do well on clay - but everything else you're saying can be refuted by fact. It's not a matter of opinion to say that Andy's win over Coria counts as a "legitimate win over a top-clay-courter"... Coria was not anywhere NEAR his top form. I'm sorry, the argument does not fly.

A good all-court player who prefers the baseline IS capable of winning anywhere, but the question still remains as to whether Andy is at that point yet. My opinion is that he is not. BUT he is only 21 so to say he will never be is just as absurd in the other direction.

I said to give it up because you're not going to get anyone to change their minds. When even the biggest of Andy fans on this board think you are over the top, that should mean something to you.

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 07:34 PM
Ryan, I'm on your side. I am an Andy fan, but you're overboard. Your points aren't making sense anymore. Your main overarching points do - that Andy can do well on clay - but everything else you're saying can be refuted by fact. It's not a matter of opinion to say that Andy's win over Coria counts as a "legitimate win over a top-clay-courter"... Coria was not anywhere NEAR his top form. I'm sorry, the argument does not fly.

A good all-court player who prefers the baseline IS capable of winning anywhere, but the question still remains as to whether Andy is at that point yet. My opinion is that he is not. BUT he is only 21 so to say he will never be is just as absurd in the other direction.

I said to give it up because you're not going to get anyone to change their minds. When even the biggest of Andy fans on this board think you are over the top, that should mean something to you.


I am happy for you...atleast for being an A-Rod fan. My points certainly do make sense. You even argue them in your second para there. If they didn't make sense you wouldn't. You atleast agree now that a good all court/basliner can win anywhere. If you agree to that and you do. Then my point is that Andy Roddick ready to become a great all-court/baseline this year. He will step up and do that. You can't argue that, it's an opinion and you can only wait and see..

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 07:42 PM
ok great, can't you leave it at that? The point is that you keep gooooooooooooing and talk about other players and say stuff that most people would argue against.

Ok, you think Andy can become a great all-court player and do well on clay. Fine, let's move on.

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 08:08 PM
ok great, can't you leave it at that? The point is that you keep gooooooooooooing and talk about other players and say stuff that most people would argue against.

Ok, you think Andy can become a great all-court player and do well on clay. Fine, let's move on.

haha, alright...I will but, if someone else on this board says otherwise. I will have to go on and on...which is what happened, I came to a resolution with Fedex and these other people decide to come in and argue...so yea, you and I are done but, others may say different. ..hopefully it can be left at this... :worship:

Sjengster
01-20-2004, 08:10 PM
I warn you now, it won't be - if you're still here come the clay season then the debate will resume. And while I don't doubt that Roddick will improve on clay under Gilbert, if he's come away with a RG title at the end of it all then swine will indeed have gained the power of flight.

RealityRyan
01-20-2004, 08:13 PM
I warn you now, it won't be - if you're still here come the clay season then the debate will resume. And while I don't doubt that Roddick will improve on clay under Gilbert, if he's come away with a RG title at the end of it all then swine will indeed have gained the power of flight.


I will be here for RG this year when Pig fly over old paris..

Deboogle!.
01-20-2004, 09:10 PM
Ryan... a better tactic when you don't like what someone says is to hit the good ole' ignore button. it's much better for sanity than arguing.

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 11:21 PM
My point is simply that you said he never beat anyone good on clay.

I did say something like that. Because it's generally true. He's beaten some half decent players on clay (Davydenko isn't bad, nor is Robredo). He's never beaten anybody who was close to the top on clay (Coria was hardly top 100 when that win happened two years ago. You obviously are grasping at straws if you need to cite this as evidence that Roddick can play with the best on clay).

That is my point. You are obviously too thick to comprehend this. I keep responding because waiting to see what you'll shit out next is too funny to pass up!

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 11:25 PM
Ok, you think Andy can become a great all-court player and do well on clay. Fine, let's move on.

That's actually not what he was saying at all. He was indicating that Andy could be GREAT on clay. Among the best best! That's not quite the same as saying Andy can "do well on clay".

I don't argue that Andy can improve on clay. Hell, I thought he'd make the fourth round at RG last year! Time and time again he's showed little improvement, though, and seems to show little desire to do so. If he really wanted to, he'd play more clay tournaments in Europe or SA, because the competition in the USA touranments just doesn't cut it.

I just thought that I'd point out that there is a fine distinction between the sensibility of your summary, and the lunacy of what he's actually saying.

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 11:26 PM
haha, alright...I will but, if someone else on this board says otherwise. I will have to go on and on...which is what happened, I came to a resolution with Fedex and these other people decide to come in and argue...so yea, you and I are done but, others may say different. ..hopefully it can be left at this... :worship:
Right. Obviously people who come into your thread and disagree with you are being arguementitive just for the sake of it. It couldn't possibly be that you're being ridiculous.

Chloe le Bopper
01-20-2004, 11:30 PM
Yes lots of clay experts but Ferrero is the only reliable one. Afterall Verkerk beat Coria in the semis last year in 4 sets, a guy many consider to be the second best clay courter.

If Verkerk can beat a clay expert in the semis of a clay slam why can't Roddick?
As somebody else already pointed out, Verkerk actually LIKES clay. He says it's his favourite surface?! Mentally, that makes a huge difference.

That's a lot of Roddick's problem, I think... he's not comfortable on it, doesn't feel quite so invincible, so he plays like ass and loses to Wayne Arthurs or whoever. I imagine we'll see some improvement in that aspect with Brad in the picture.

Your comment wasn't directed at me anyways, but I like to hear myself type... Verkerk showed that a big server can make the RG finals, sure. But remember what happened in that final? I don't doubt Roddick will have a great run there one year. Krajicek did it, Sampras did it, Rafter did it... why not Roddick. I just think that he'll win Roland Garros around the same time that I win the womens event. As in, it's highly freakin unlikey.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 12:22 AM
I did say something like that. Because it's generally true. He's beaten some half decent players on clay (Davydenko isn't bad, nor is Robredo). He's never beaten anybody who was close to the top on clay (Coria was hardly top 100 when that win happened two years ago. You obviously are grasping at straws if you need to cite this as evidence that Roddick can play with the best on clay).

That is my point. You are obviously too thick to comprehend this. I keep responding because waiting to see what you'll shit out next is too funny to pass up!

Why are you soo silly stop making me laugh... :lol: I will keep telling you the same things over and over again and you will say the same things to me. For the last time silly billy, a win is a win and Roddick has beat good clay players b4. Listen to yourself anytime anyone beats anyone, you can always use the old excuse, that the person beaten wasn't playing at 100 percent and thats a cop out. If that's so, I will use your cop out on you, all the times Roddick was at RG he wasn't playing his best thats why he lost so early.

So relax on that and go smoke a joint and mellow out mmmhhh kk....

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 12:26 AM
That's actually not what he was saying at all. He was indicating that Andy could be GREAT on clay. Among the best best! That's not quite the same as saying Andy can "do well on clay".

I don't argue that Andy can improve on clay. Hell, I thought he'd make the fourth round at RG last year! Time and time again he's showed little improvement, though, and seems to show little desire to do so. If he really wanted to, he'd play more clay tournaments in Europe or SA, because the competition in the USA touranments just doesn't cut it.

I just thought that I'd point out that there is a fine distinction between the sensibility of your summary, and the lunacy of what he's actually saying.

Try visine it gets the redout :o your vision will clear up and you can read :eek: at that point because right now, words are blurry to you and you are seeing things that are'nt there. I never said that Roddick will become one of the best clay courters of all time bla bla. I said he will become a great player and that great players of Roddicks style can win on any surface...so go suck on a titty... :angel:

Sjengster
01-21-2004, 12:28 AM
Nice debating point at the end there Ryan, I must remember to use that one in class sometime.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 12:29 AM
Right. Obviously people who come into your thread and disagree with you are being arguementitive just for the sake of it. It couldn't possibly be that you're being ridiculous.

Who is more ridiculous the person that is ridiculous or the person that argues with the ridiculous person even though they know it's pointless...
ahh got you there...time for you to light up another doobie...

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 12:32 AM
Nice debating point at the end there Ryan, I must remember to use that one in class sometime.


hahah, it gave me a chuckle even as I wrote it, if all else fails use logic...:haha:

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 12:51 AM
I just thought that I'd point out that there is a fine distinction between the sensibility of your summary, and the lunacy of what he's actually saying.

*sigh* I know Becca.... I was trying to help the kid out in the hopes he might listen to me and shut up. Obviously it didn't work so I won't try again lol.

Chloe le Bopper
01-21-2004, 02:42 AM
all the times Roddick was at RG he wasn't playing his best thats why he lost so early.


I'd actually be willing to agree with that. I can see no other why he'd lose to Wayne Arthurs on clay.

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 02:54 AM
I'd actually be willing to agree with that. I can see no other why he'd lose to Wayne Arthurs on clay.


Agreement, omg you rock!! :worship: ahh...another good thread put to rest..

Ads
01-21-2004, 03:01 AM
RealityRyan:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/lanemeyer/forum/forumpics/moresense.jpg

Chloe le Bopper
01-21-2004, 03:02 AM
RealityRyan:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/lanemeyer/forum/forumpics/moresense.jpg
:lol:

Havok
01-21-2004, 03:03 AM
:sad: look at all this crap i ws missing. but i'm too lazy to read this thread right now. maybe tomorrow:p

Deboogle!.
01-21-2004, 03:55 AM
OMG DYING

:haha: :haha:

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 02:04 PM
RealityRyan:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/lanemeyer/forum/forumpics/moresense.jpg

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/cupofstfu.jpg


http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/threadwontdie.jpg

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 02:09 PM
:lol:

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/arguing.jpg

Chloe le Bopper
01-21-2004, 05:33 PM
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/arguing.jpg
This one was custom made for you, Ryan ;)

RealityRyan
01-21-2004, 05:38 PM
This one was custom made for you, Ryan ;)


Ahhh but then again you didn't post it, I did. So get something unique that you came up with. Until then, it for you babes..
along with this one

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/JustDumb.gif

undomiele
01-21-2004, 06:09 PM
Chill guys Chill.... :cool: No need to get bitter with the pics. Here's a random pic that will make you all laugh. ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-21-2004, 06:22 PM
Ahhh but then again you didn't post it, I did. So get something unique that you came up with. Until then, it for you babes..
along with this one

http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/JustDumb.gif
If by "unique" you mean "ripping off somebody elses work and considering yourself unique for using it"... then yes, yes you are.

Frankly, I can't be bothered to look these up. Why bother when you guys are doing all the work?

Mmmm beer.

Ads
01-22-2004, 03:21 AM
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/arguing.jpg

this picture is not even remotely funny, i worked with children with mental disabilities over the summer and i absolutely loathe the word "retarded"

mrpenguin
01-22-2004, 12:10 PM
Still, Roddick has never beaten Hewitt (0-3 )

statistically, roger has beaten all the players in his draw to
the final at least once , including andy.

Deboogle!.
01-22-2004, 02:43 PM
ok.... but Andy hasn't played Hewitt since US Open 2001. And you can't exactly call that a walkover victory. Plus one of the times he won, it was 1 set all and Andy had to retire. So IF it were a Hewitt/Roddick final I don't know that you could expect Hewitt to win for sure.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:34 PM
this picture is not even remotely funny, i worked with children with mental disabilities over the summer and i absolutely loathe the word "retarded"


Yea, I know, I used to work with mentally and physically retarded children. It was a bad post by me....again...I didn't lower the IQ level of this thread. If you look at how I started and how I responded it was others who attacked me.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:37 PM
ok.... but Andy hasn't played Hewitt since US Open 2001. And you can't exactly call that a walkover victory. Plus one of the times he won, it was 1 set all and Andy had to retire. So IF it were a Hewitt/Roddick final I don't know that you could expect Hewitt to win for sure.

Yea that US Open match with Roddick and the ball got over ruled by the chair on the on other side, was close. That was when Roddick wasn't that good even. So I would be Hewitt would have to play pretty good to beat A-Rod.

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:39 PM
If by "unique" you mean "ripping off somebody elses work and considering yourself unique for using it"... then yes, yes you are.

Frankly, I can't be bothered to look these up. Why bother when you guys are doing all the work?

Mmmm beer.

Acutally girlie, if you at that website. It's mine. I made those. You think this is the only forum I am in you are nuts. I am a forum slut..

Prophetic
01-22-2004, 03:47 PM
so what's the url ryan?

RealityRyan
01-22-2004, 03:54 PM
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/

J. Corwin
01-23-2004, 02:46 AM
Good that you see it's wrong to make fun of mentally challenged people.

WyverN
01-23-2004, 02:50 AM
ok.... but Andy hasn't played Hewitt since US Open 2001. And you can't exactly call that a walkover victory. Plus one of the times he won, it was 1 set all and Andy had to retire. So IF it were a Hewitt/Roddick final I don't know that you could expect Hewitt to win for sure.

I would expect Roddick to win for sure, anyway Hewitt wont make it to the final

Deboogle!.
01-23-2004, 03:08 AM
Wyver, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you were coming over to the dark side :devil:

Chloe le Bopper
01-23-2004, 03:11 AM
I've seen the "retarded" photo in the past. I somehow doubt that you created it. But whatever. If you want to claim credit for it, well then... congratulations.

You've already proven yourself to be a racist, so why not a liar as well? ;)

Fumus
01-23-2004, 03:33 AM
A-Rod will win at Wimbly maybe and US Open or Aussie but on clay? :confused:

Ads
01-23-2004, 04:19 AM
if that really is your website than you should be ashamed of yourself for making these:
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/YourAFag.jpg
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/YOUROCK!.jpg
http://www.ianai.net/jokes/forumpix/country.jpg

WyverN
01-23-2004, 05:35 AM
Wyver, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you were coming over to the dark side :devil:

I am happy on the sunny Federer side ;)

Ads, that second one is really classy :rolleyes: