Roddick's Record in Clinchers [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roddick's Record in Clinchers

bluefork
09-24-2006, 03:03 PM
Roddick has a perfect record in the “clinching” matches for the USA in Davis Cup. But he also has a perfect record when he’s playing to keep the USA in a tie—he’s now 0-4:

2002
France leading USA 2-1: S.GROSJEAN (FRA) def. A.RODDICK (USA) 6-4 3-6 6-3 6-4

2004
Spain leading USA 2-1: C.MOYA (ESP) def. A.RODDICK (USA) 6-2 7-6(1) 7-6(5)

2005
Croatia leading USA 2-1: I.LJUBICIC (CRO) def. A.RODDICK (USA) 4-6 6-3 7-6(11) 6-7(7) 6-2

2006
Russia leading USA 2-1: D. TURSUNOV (RUS) def. A. RODDICK (USA) 6-3 6-4 5-7 3-6 17-15

mangoes
09-24-2006, 03:06 PM
Was this really necessary to point out??

Broomie
09-24-2006, 03:09 PM
You have to take the surface into account. Weren't Spain, France and Russia all on clay?
The weakest link of the team is Blake not Roddick, because Roddick can't rely on Blake to step up when he's a little down.

bluefork
09-24-2006, 03:12 PM
Was this really necessary to point out??

Obviously you don't want to hear it since you were rooting for Roddick, but I thought it was an interesting and relevant statistic. :p

El Legenda
09-24-2006, 03:14 PM
:haha: Roddick sucks

croat123
09-24-2006, 03:15 PM
:haha: Roddick sucks
:haha:

Horatio Caine
09-24-2006, 03:51 PM
:haha: Roddick sucks

USA got further than CRO in DC this year ;) :p

Black Adam
09-24-2006, 06:26 PM
:haha:
it would be right to laugh the day the croats win 31 DC's :p

shrudy
09-24-2006, 06:38 PM
it would be right to laugh the day the croats win 31 DC's :p

or even two.

~*BGT*~
09-24-2006, 07:07 PM
or even two.
Even that won't happen. :p

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 07:11 PM
Even that won't happen. :p

Wait for next year then.

jole
09-24-2006, 07:12 PM
I'm not a fan of anyone on the playing American team, and I like some of Russian players, but it wouldn't have broken my heart if America won since I am American.

Thanks for the stat.

Johnny Groove
09-24-2006, 08:13 PM
The weakest link of the team is Blake not Roddick, because Roddick can't rely on Blake to step up when he's a little down.

I take it you didnt see the Romania tie in the 1st round :wavey:

croat123
09-24-2006, 08:32 PM
it would be right to laugh the day the croats win 31 DC's :p
cro has won one davic cup for every 4 million people. the u.s. has won one dc for about 10 million
also, the us has been playing davis cup for a century, croatia has been playing for 10 years

and, last time i checked, the u.s. didn't go through a 5 year war for independence recently

Jimnik
09-24-2006, 08:37 PM
:haha: Roddick sucks
Wise words from the Arse-Clown quarter-finalist.

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 08:39 PM
:haha: Roddick sucks

:worship: :worship: :worship:

Merton
09-24-2006, 09:14 PM
This is absolutely biased because you condition the record on ties that the US lost.

R.Federer
09-24-2006, 10:33 PM
This is absolutely biased because you condition the record on ties that the US lost.
Incorrect. I believe the conditioning is done prior to the loss. It's done on matches which decide whether USA draws even or loses.

bluefork
09-24-2006, 10:41 PM
This is absolutely biased because you condition the record on ties that the US lost.

I'm not totally sure what you're talking about. The record I posted includes every match where the other team was in a position to win and Roddick had to win the match for team USA to stay in it. He has never won a match where he is in this pressure situation.

tangerine_dream
09-24-2006, 10:44 PM
This is absolutely biased because you condition the record on ties that the US lost.
Stats are also incorrect because Roddick clinched the match vs Belgium on clay last year to get us back into the world group. :shrug:

Other than trolling, bluefork doesn't really have a point. But we already knew that.

Johnny Groove
09-24-2006, 10:49 PM
blue fork is talking about clinching the loss, which roddick is 4-0 with. He fails to talk about roddick clinching the win which is like 7-1, or 8-1, something like that. But of course, Roddick must be considered with the negative before the positive

bluefork
09-24-2006, 11:07 PM
blue fork is talking about clinching the loss, which roddick is 4-0 with. He fails to talk about roddick clinching the win which is like 7-1, or 8-1, something like that. But of course, Roddick must be considered with the negative before the positive

I did mention that he has a perfect record in clinching it for the USA! Check my original post! :mad:

bluefork
09-24-2006, 11:08 PM
Other than trolling, bluefork doesn't really have a point. But we already knew that.

:confused: What does that mean?

Merton
09-24-2006, 11:13 PM
Incorrect. I believe the conditioning is done prior to the loss. It's done on matches which decide whether USA draws even or loses.

I believe that you didn't get what i was talking about because i didn't bother explaining myself fully. The (null) hypothesis of interest is "Andy sucks in DC deciding matches". What I am saying is that if you restrict attention to the ties that the US lost, you will make biased inferences about the underlying hypothesis.

bluefork
09-24-2006, 11:22 PM
I believe that you didn't get what i was talking about because i didn't bother explaining myself fully. The (null) hypothesis of interest is "Andy sucks in DC deciding matches". What I am saying is that if you restrict attention to the ties that the US lost, you will make biased inferences about the underlying hypothesis.

Well, I did mention that he does well in clinching matches--but those are only when he's got a cushion of 2-1 (USA leading). But when the USA is on the verge of losing, he does not seem to handle the pressure well. I don't think there's anything biased about that analysis.

Merton
09-24-2006, 11:27 PM
Well, I did mention that he does well in clinching matches--but those are only when he's got a cushion of 2-1 (USA leading). But when the USA is on the verge of losing, he does not seem to handle the pressure well. I don't think there's anything biased about that analysis.

Well, playing the 4th match, conditional on being a live rubber, the score must be 2-1. So given that he is the top ranked US player, he must be playing the 4th match. The correct thing to do was to take all the matches that the US played, examine Andy's record in the clinching match regardless of a win or loss and compare this record with the overall record of Andy on DC matches.

R.Federer
09-24-2006, 11:34 PM
I believe that you didn't get what i was talking about because i didn't bother explaining myself fully. The (null) hypothesis of interest is "Andy sucks in DC deciding matches". What I am saying is that if you restrict attention to the ties that the US lost, you will make biased inferences about the underlying hypothesis.
I got the "conditioning on matches which the US lost" exactly as you wrote. However, the OP did not condition on that, and you wrote that he did. I did not know you had something else in mind from your statement. I have no doubt that the result would be biased if you only look at ties lost for this particular null.

Merton
09-24-2006, 11:38 PM
Look at my post #26. That was not the methodology that the thread starter used.

Winston's Human
09-25-2006, 12:58 AM
I think that it is unfair to pin the 2005 defeat to Croatia solely on Roddick given that he at least won his Friday match and that Agassi and the Bryans also lost matches during that tie.

Havok
09-25-2006, 01:08 AM
I take it you didnt see the Romania tie in the 1st round :wavey:
Um not for anything but James had to play a SHIT player and he was playing on his best surface (hardcourts) to keep the USA "alive" in that tie. Also, the only reason Roddick lost to Pavel was because he was violently ill during that match (I believe he threw up on several occasions throughout the match) but then redemed himself and easily clinched the tie for his team. Apart from Roddick, only Fish has saved the USA from a disasterous 0-2 deficite by winning the second singles rubber on day 1 out of the new team of the young ones (which was huge btw since we all know how awesome Fish is on clay). James continuously loses his first singles match and that puts insane amount of pressure on Roddick to close it out come Sunday's 4th rubber (which, like was stated, is virtually 100%). Also this Russia tie James knew that it was his first singles match he really needed to win for the USA to go through to the finals since nobody was gonna be beating Safin on clay in a live rubber and he didn't deliver and screwed up that first set badly. He also choked the chicken like nobody else could vs Gonzo in their QF tie at home on grass :o. Could you imagine what the US DC team would be like if they didn't have Roddick on their team?:scared::help:

bluefork
09-25-2006, 02:05 AM
I think that it is unfair to pin the 2005 defeat to Croatia solely on Roddick given that he at least won his Friday match and that Agassi and the Bryans also lost matches during that tie.

That wasn't my intent at all. I don't pin the defeat on anyone but the Croatians (especially Ljubicic), who played great that weekend.

But I wonder what would have happened if either Agassi or the Bryans had won their matches, and USA was up 2-1 instead of down 1-2 when Roddick had to play his second match. Would he have felt less pressure and played better when it got close in that fifth set? Judging from the trends, it looks like the answer would be yes.

R.Federer
09-25-2006, 02:51 AM
Well, playing the 4th match, conditional on being a live rubber, the score must be 2-1. So given that he is the top ranked US player, he must be playing the 4th match. The correct thing to do was to take all the matches that the US played, examine Andy's record in the clinching match regardless of a win or loss and compare this record with the overall record of Andy on DC matches.
It depends on what the original poster wants to test. It seems that if s/he wants to test Andy's record in DC pressure situations, then he needs to take the record in 1-2 matches (not all matches regardless of win/loss). and compare that with the record in non-pressure situations 2-1, 1-1, 0-0 and 2-0.

By the way, top ranked players don't always play the fourth match. See Tursunov (2006).

Merton
09-25-2006, 02:58 AM
It depends on what the original poster wants to test. It seems that if s/he wants to test Andy's record in DC pressure situations, then he needs to take the record in 1-2 matches (not all matches regardless of win/loss). and compare that with the record in non-pressure situations 2-1, 1-1, 0-0 and 2-0.

By the way, top ranked players don't always play the fourth match. See Tursunov (2006).

Fair enough, but for the US team I cannot think of a case where Andy didn't play the 4th match.

partygirl
09-25-2006, 03:09 AM
:haha: Roddick sucks
:sad:"JERRRRY!!" ...i ask so little:sobbing::crying2:

Anyway Blake is the real problem.

Broomie
09-25-2006, 03:15 AM
Um not for anything but James had to play a SHIT player and he was playing on his best surface (hardcourts) to keep the USA "alive" in that tie. Also, the only reason Roddick lost to Pavel was because he was violently ill during that match (I believe he threw up on several occasions throughout the match) but then redemed himself and easily clinched the tie for his team. Apart from Roddick, only Fish has saved the USA from a disasterous 0-2 deficite by winning the second singles rubber on day 1 out of the new team of the young ones (which was huge btw since we all know how awesome Fish is on clay). James continuously loses his first singles match and that puts insane amount of pressure on Roddick to close it out come Sunday's 4th rubber (which, like was stated, is virtually 100%). Also this Russia tie James knew that it was his first singles match he really needed to win for the USA to go through to the finals since nobody was gonna be beating Safin on clay in a live rubber and he didn't deliver and screwed up that first set badly. He also choked the chicken like nobody else could vs Gonzo in their QF tie at home on grass :o. Could you imagine what the US DC team would be like if they didn't have Roddick on their team?:scared::help:
thank you! that's what I meant :worship:

bluefork
09-25-2006, 03:16 AM
:sad:"JERRRRY!!" ...i ask so little:sobbing::crying2:

Anyway Blake is the real problem.

Actually, I think the lack of depth on the US team is the real problem. And the fact that they're miserable on clay.

Broomie
09-25-2006, 03:48 AM
Actually, I think the lack of depth on the US team is the real problem. And the fact that they're miserable on clay.
In the meantime, they start almost every tie with a 1-0 advantage, whatever the surface. The pbm is in this situation you need 2 players who can get you 2 other wins. Easier on paper i guess...
I don't know, I don't see depth as the real pbm rather than polyvalent players. The same way the twins always get that point, they have to win those 2 matches. One victory each is not too much for 2 top 10 players.
If one gave the twins to some of those players who have to play 3 matches, they would be frightning (argentina, croatia...)