Roddaq-100: Official Andy Roddick Cheering Thread [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roddaq-100: Official Andy Roddick Cheering Thread

Fumus
03-23-2004, 07:15 PM
Gooo Andy! :cool:

You are gonna atleast make the quarters...

Deboogle!.
03-23-2004, 08:17 PM
wow dude, how ballsy of you ;)

Fumus
03-23-2004, 08:21 PM
wow dude, how ballsy of you ;)

I mean you got it in the bag! Roger is gonna loose because you have the secret plan!! I know you do!! :D

Deboogle!.
03-23-2004, 08:33 PM
lmgdfao!

Fumus
03-23-2004, 09:09 PM
yea!! That's the Andy fans everybody loves!

Deboogle!.
03-24-2004, 10:07 PM
Nope pretty sure not. They're based in So Cal, that's why they did IW

Deboogle!.
03-24-2004, 10:24 PM
oh I really enjoyed it too!!! But nope don't think we'll get anything til 3rd round action starts on Sunday on ESPN.

Fumus
03-26-2004, 07:01 PM
haha Tangy...you know espn only covers the americans until there is no one else american left...

Havok
03-26-2004, 07:35 PM
:drive:

Fumus
03-26-2004, 08:28 PM
:singer: :music: :rocker:

Deboogle!.
03-26-2004, 10:27 PM
well Serena and JCap both won, so we'll be seeing them anyway :o

Deboogle!.
03-30-2004, 05:06 AM
Tangy you can't compare pure numbers....Andy plays a high-risk game. Plus the 8 aces against a solid returner against Bjorkman is actually pretty good. I mean Andy served 89% in the second set and was still broken and still lost it... the important thing was that Andy finally pulled out a tough win when he was NOT at his best. He can win any day when he plays his best but to beat a tough guy who knows how to beat him, when he's not playing his best, that's big and will hopefully give him some confidence :)

Deboogle!.
03-30-2004, 05:24 AM
yep... but the thing is... Bjorkman might not play Friday singles lmao.. he might but he might not. IF he doesn't and IF the US wins both singles and doubles, it won't matter lol. it depends on how Wilander decides to play it.

J. Corwin
03-30-2004, 11:12 AM
Geaux Andy!

(I just HAD to do it;))

Deboogle!.
03-30-2004, 01:26 PM
Naldo will appreciate the gesture!!!

Fumus
03-30-2004, 04:33 PM
Andy won that match in a hurry in the 3rd set....damn they cut that Andre match..

J. Corwin
04-03-2004, 03:15 AM
Go Andy! Geaux! One more win and the title is yours. :)

heya
04-03-2004, 04:20 AM
Spadea, please keep Andy away from Ninja's #1 spot! wahhhh
Andy, don't beat Nadal! LOL

Havok
04-04-2004, 04:16 AM
GEAUX ANDY!!!:banana: take the title and your 200th career win:rocker2:

Fedex
04-04-2004, 09:47 AM
Spadea, please keep Andy away from Ninja's #1 spot! wahhhh
Andy, don't beat Nadal! LOL
He aint anywhere near Roger's #1 spot Dah!! :retard: And as the clay season is fast approaching, i expect Roger to really move far ahead of Andy, since he's so much better on the surface. Ferrero will overtake him as #2 as well.

heya
04-04-2004, 10:29 AM
Career titles count more than ranking BOOBOO

Fedex
04-04-2004, 11:42 AM
Career titles count more than ranking BOOBOO
Yea. He's 2 behind Roger right now 12-14. So even if he wins, Fed will still have 1 more career title.

Deboogle!.
04-04-2004, 02:36 PM
Yea. He's 2 behind Roger right now 12-14. So even if he wins, Fed will still have 1 more career title.

Yea and he's been on tour 2 less seasons. Bye now! :wavey:

WyveN
04-04-2004, 03:27 PM
Yea and he's been on tour 2 less seasons.

They both won their first title in 2001, in fact Roddick was ahead 3-1 after 2001.

Not that it really matters. At the end of their careers players are not compared by amount of titles they won.

Only vital statistics are # of slams as well as # of year end #1 rankings and a few other bonus ones such as # of weeks at #1 and # of DC.

Deboogle!.
04-04-2004, 03:40 PM
Yep, and luckily this thread isn't about any of those things. It's about cheering for Andy today. So, unless you're going to join in the fun we'll see you guys somewhere else :)

WyveN
04-04-2004, 04:22 PM
Yep, and luckily this thread isn't about any of those things. It's about cheering for Andy today. So, unless you're going to join in the fun we'll see you guys somewhere else :)


Interesting that you didn't point that out to Heya who was the first to go off topic.

Deboogle!.
04-04-2004, 04:45 PM
anyone who replies to heya gets whe he or she deserves :)

lsy
04-04-2004, 06:00 PM
funny though you always reply to those replies to heya lol

bunk oh bunk...

Deboogle!.
04-04-2004, 07:40 PM
Heya was posting, in the Andy thread, to Andy fans. We understood her joke, obviously the other people coming in here for no apparent reason did not.

J. Corwin
04-04-2004, 08:08 PM
They both won their first title in 2001, in fact Roddick was ahead 3-1 after 2001.

Not that it really matters. At the end of their careers players are not compared by amount of titles they won.

Only vital statistics are # of slams as well as # of year end #1 rankings and a few other bonus ones such as # of weeks at #1 and # of DC.

Still, it took that much longer for Roger to win his 1st title. Andy has played about two less seasons than Roger but is now only 1 title behind him.

And I disagree, players are also compared by amount of titles won. It maybe isn't as vital as # of slams won or # of year end #1 rankings, but it's still part of the equation.

lsy
04-05-2004, 06:29 AM
Heya was posting, in the Andy thread, to Andy fans. We understood her joke, obviously the other people coming in here for no apparent reason did not.

Obviously each time any andy fan "diss" some other players, it's always a joke or humour whereas when others do that, it's always a "andy bashings".

WyveN
04-05-2004, 07:19 AM
And I disagree, players are also compared by amount of titles won. It maybe isn't as vital as # of slams won or # of year end #1 rankings, but it's still part of the equation.

Can you say of the top of your head how many titles Edberg, Becker, Courier etc won?

WyveN
04-05-2004, 07:21 AM
Obviously each time any andy fan "diss" some other players, it's always a joke or humour whereas when others do that, it's always a "andy bashings".

Not to mention this is a public thread on a public forum and no one apart from official staff has any authority to try and moderate it - not like its the only thread in the forum that has gone off topic

J. Corwin
04-05-2004, 10:30 AM
Can you say of the top of your head how many titles Edberg, Becker, Courier etc won?


Off the top of my head I know that they won titles in this order, from most to least: Becker, Edberg, Courier. Just by knowing who won more than the other allows me to use it as part of the equation when doing comparisons.

J. Corwin
04-05-2004, 10:34 AM
I also know that Becker and Courier are in the 40-something # of titles and Courier has like 23.

If it's only one or two number of titles different between two players then maybe it's not such a big deal. But if it's something like 20, I think it matters. Connors' 109 titles work in his favor, for example.

WyveN
04-05-2004, 11:14 AM
Connors played during a era where a far greater emphasis was placed on titles, majority of those titles are against sub mickey mouse fields.

Muster won more titles then Edberg yet not many would place Muster above him. Yes titles are important, but it is more of a tiebreaker if amount of slams + #1 stats are similar.

Dirk
04-05-2004, 01:39 PM
Come on now Roger has been gone early in this event and his name still comes up in an Andy thread which should be a happy one since he won the event. Nadal played a great match that night and Roger for whatever reason didn't play well so he lost. Andy developed faster than Roger and was more of a champion internally when he came on the tour. Roger had mental issues and his grand game took naturally much more time to master (and he is still working on mastering it) Roger actually made Marsille and Basel finals in 2000 but he lost to very players like Rosset and Enqvist. The Rosset match was tight and the other one did go to 5 sets. Speaking of Clay Season in my eyes Roger has a lot to prove as does Andy. Sure Roger is more suited for great success on the clay but two 1st rd RG losses say a lot for both.

Oh and Heya speaking of your Roger Nadal comment, I think you might one to take that back if Nadal runs into Andy this clay season.

Andy won a huge event his 3rd masters title and there is bickering on his thread.

lsy
04-05-2004, 03:01 PM
Not to mention this is a public thread on a public forum and no one apart from official staff has any authority to try and moderate it - not like its the only thread in the forum that has gone off topic

WyverN, you obviously didn't read the session of "bunk's rule for all posters in MTF" upon joining. I did and thought it was a good one until recently I realised it was actually "bunk's rule for all non-andy fans in MTF" ;)

Deboogle!.
04-05-2004, 03:43 PM
Oy... have you all lost your senses of humor?

Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that heya sort of just talks and we listen and laugh but don't really say much since not much of it is meant to be taken too seriously. Guess not.

She wasn't insulting the players anyway, if you understood what she was saying you'd know that. I don't think anyone should insult any players, since there aren't any players I dislike enough to want to do that. But I'm obviously in the great minority here with that belief :)

J. Corwin
04-05-2004, 06:47 PM
Connors played during a era where a far greater emphasis was placed on titles, majority of those titles are against sub mickey mouse fields.

Muster won more titles then Edberg yet not many would place Muster above him. Yes titles are important, but it is more of a tiebreaker if amount of slams + #1 stats are similar.

If you include a lot of his even lower level titles, he would have something like 170 odd titles in total...if I remember correctly.

And yes I would place Edberg ahead of Muster as well. That is also why many place Courier above Chang. Chang has 14 more titles but 3 less majors.

It's what I've been saying all along: Titles DO matter. But I had already stated that slams and #1 stats are more important, so I don't see where your argument is coming from.

J. Corwin
04-05-2004, 07:23 PM
Come on now Roger has been gone early in this event and his name still comes up in an Andy thread which should be a happy one since he won the event. Nadal played a great match that night and Roger for whatever reason didn't play well so he lost. Andy developed faster than Roger and was more of a champion internally when he came on the tour. Roger had mental issues and his grand game took naturally much more time to master (and he is still working on mastering it) Roger actually made Marsille and Basel finals in 2000 but he lost to very players like Rosset and Enqvist. The Rosset match was tight and the other one did go to 5 sets. Speaking of Clay Season in my eyes Roger has a lot to prove as does Andy. Sure Roger is more suited for great success on the clay but two 1st rd RG losses say a lot for both.

Oh and Heya speaking of your Roger Nadal comment, I think you might one to take that back if Nadal runs into Andy this clay season.

Andy won a huge event his 3rd masters title and there is bickering on his thread.

Actually heya said something that pushed the wrong buttons on another poster. There was no bickering at all.