Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 40 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,731 Posts
A lot of the major network commentators don't know the players outside the top20, and often guys inside. That's just embarrassing for supposed "professionals".

The other day, a Troicki match, they clearly knew nothing about him. Yes, he's new to the top20, but did they not think to look at his career progression? The impact of the Davis Cup? His regression of late to old (mental) habits? Just lazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
:facepalm: isnt being a top player for that long in itself a worthy achievement?

also he has a slam, thats faaaaar from "almost nothing".


With 10 YEARS in and around the top? Or close to it? That IS almost nothing with all the chances hes been given. Hell Flash in the pans did more in the span of 2-4 years (guy who had constant injuries etc) then Roddick who had an extra long extended run there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
He would have more slams if he could beat Federer, but he can't.

Federer would have more slams if he could beat Nadal on clay, but he can't.

You can't just say someone should have X slams without considering their rivals (competition). Few players outside of Federer or Nadal have any slams in the past 10 or so years.

On the one hand, Roddick should have 5 or so slams (damn Federer). On the other hand, he really should have zero (he really got lucky to get the one he has). For me, it's not all about slams. I respect his consistency year in and year out.

That said, I think he has the personality of a jackass.

As far as his comments about analysts, he's right, but 1) It's obvious to anyone that watches tennis and 2) It's bad form to say what he said in that setting without giving Fowler any advanced notice. I suppose he thinks he's funny, but he's not. It's bad form and he's a jackass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
He would have more slams if he could beat Federer, but he can't.

Federer would have more slams if he could beat Nadal on clay, but he can't.

You can't just say someone should have X slams without considering their rivals (competition). Few players outside of Federer or Nadal have any slams in the past 10 or so years.

On the one hand, Roddick should have 5 or so slams (damn Federer). On the other hand, he really should have zero (he really got lucky to get the one he has). For me, it's not all about slams. I respect his consistency year in and year out.

That said, I think he has the personality of a jackass.



Guy who came along for a short time period with less chances to take out Fed, took Fed out.. Why couldn't Roddick do so at least 3-4 times, with however many chances it was.... 30 chances? thats ALOT of chances to get wins
 

·
Anathemaniac
Joined
·
41,908 Posts
Roddick makes a really good point. Can't think of a recent example but I know there have been many instances in the past (especially with the good players) where there's a lot of ass-kissing about how good these players are when the truth is that the opponent is just playing like shit. I mean, if Murray is pushing all day and just keeping the ball in play and the opponent is teeing off and making a billion UEs, just say so, don't keep fawning over the nonexistent good play.

There's so many of these types of things. Player X plays well and wins the first set before going down in the second and they say, oh player X should go back to doing what he did in the first set. You think player X purposely changes a winning strategy? It's usually they can't keep up that level of play or the opponent changes something to disrupt their rhythm.

I get Roddick's point, a lot of times the commentators fawn over whoever's winning and shit on whoever's losing. Unfortunately this happens regardless of whether someone's playing crap or someone's playing great. Oh well, at least it makes me appreciate the little tidbits of actual insightful commentary we get every once in a while.
Fully agree. I remember well a certain match a couple of days ago where all I heard from the commies was how a certain player was showing such awesome fighting, whereas in reality, all that happened was his opponent having a massive threefold choke. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,582 Posts
With 10 YEARS in and around the top? Or close to it? That IS almost nothing with all the chances hes been given. Hell Flash in the pans did more in the span of 2-4 years (guy who had constant injuries etc) then Roddick who had an extra long extended run there
all roddick can be 'blamed' for imo are few chokes he had vs fed. but thats a sporting thing I dont think it deserves any critique. simply, the merit should be effort, commitment, dedication... roddick has 5 slam finals, excellent ranking over the years, and that is very good in my book.

as for personality, yes it appears arrogant and too forward, but thats a matter of aesthetics. I dont mind the tantrums at all. and for all that he's done 'wrong' in that sense, hes been clapped over the ears for it.

that said, had he not been a character that he is, he wouldn't have said these journo-clowns what they need to hear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
all roddick can be 'blamed' for imo are few chokes he had vs fed. but thats a sporting thing I dont think it deserves any critique. simply, the merit should be effort, commitment, dedication... roddick has 5 slam finals, excellent ranking over the years, and that is very good in my book.

as for personality, yes it appears arrogant and too forward, but thats a matter of aesthetics. I dont mind the tantrums at all. and for all that he's done 'wrong' in that sense, hes been clapped over the ears for it.

that said, had he not been a character that he is, he wouldn't have said these journo-clowns what they need to hear.
Im sorry.. But damn.. You get damn near 30 cracks at a guy ( I don't care how good he is, he is beatable as others showed) you damn well better be able to convert at least a handful times if nothing else. No reason AT ALL, Roddick shouldn't have had a handful of slams. Yea he isn't as talented as some others, but he didn't have to be. Back in the day, he had an overwhelming enough game to win. He wasn't at or near the top for no reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Guy who came along for a short time period with less chances to take out Fed, took Fed out.. Why couldn't Roddick do so at least 3-4 times, with however many chances it was.... 30 chances? thats ALOT of chances to get wins
He's in the same boat as nearly every other player in the Fedal era. The difference with Roddick is that he consistent (and healthy) enough to stay at the top for all those years when nobody else was.

It doesn't really matter. You either win the big trophies and are a champion or you don't and suck. I get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
He's in the same boat as nearly every other player in the Fedal era. The difference with Roddick is that he consistent (and healthy) enough to stay at the top for all those years when nobody else was.

It doesn't really matter. You either win the big trophies and are a champion or you don't and suck. I get it.
Same boat? I dunno... What if Safin or Nalbandian had 30 cracks at Fed? Or had countless cracks at him in the slams? Del Potro, Murray, Berdych etc.. I would be willing to bet they would manage win more then 1 match in 30.

To me being "consistently" at the top and not doing a whole lot with that time there, is not THAT impressive. Its what you do with your time at the top which measures greatness.. Not how long you were at the top.

Its starting to look like that for Murray now too. Hes not doing much with his time at the top either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,830 Posts
For someone that talks a lot of crap, Roddick sure loves the sound of his own voice. The only downside to him retiring is we will have to listen to him commentating/analysing for years to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
For someone that talks a lot of crap, Roddick sure loves the sound of his own voice. The only downside to him retiring is we will have to listen to him commentating/analysing for years to come.
He talks alot of crap without the accolades and accomplishments to back it up.. Thats the crazy thing with Roddick. Hes like a legend in his own mind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,830 Posts
He's in the same boat as nearly every other player in the Fedal era. The difference with Roddick is that he consistent (and healthy) enough to stay at the top for all those years when nobody else was.

It doesn't really matter. You either win the big trophies and are a champion or you don't and suck. I get it.
Roddick had a couple of years behind Roger then he drifted slowly down the rankings. He's not like Novak and Rafa who shadowed Roger for years until they surpassed him. Playing second fiddle to Roger broke Roddick whereas it motivated Novak and Rafa to become better players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Same boat? I dunno... What if Safin or Nalbandian had 30 cracks at Fed? Or had countless cracks at him in the slams? Del Potro, Murray, Berdych etc.. I would be willing to bet they would manage win more then 1 match in 30.

To me being "consistently" at the top and not doing a whole lot with that time there, is not THAT impressive. Its what you do with your time at the top which measures greatness.. Not how long you were at the top.

Its starting to look like that for Murray now too. Hes not doing much with his time at the top either.
This is sort of the same argument we use to trash Federer. He's had so many cracks at Nadal and failed. It probably would have been better for him to lose to somebody else before all of those French Open finals.

The way I read your comments above is that Roddick is being penalized for getting to the later rounds and losing (year in and year out). Much better if he had just lost much earlier or screwed around (Safin, Nalby) and wasted his talent.

Consistency is boring compared to flashes of greatness. But in reality, its much more difficult to achieve.

Clearly we just value different things. I'm 100% fine with that. In most things in life, give me boring consistency over glimpses of greatness followed by large periods of under achieving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Roddick had a couple of years behind Roger then he drifted slowly down the rankings. He's not like Novak and Rafa who shadowed Roger for years until they surpassed him. Playing second fiddle to Roger broke Roddick whereas it motivated Novak and Rafa to become better players.
Oh sure, I would not want to compare Roddick to Nadal or Joker. There really is no comparison. He's not in their league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
This is sort of the same argument we use to trash Federer. He's had so many cracks at Nadal and failed. It probably would have been better for him to lose to somebody else before all of those French Open finals.

The way I read your comments above is that Roddick is being penalized for getting to the later rounds and losing (year in and year out). Much better if he had just lost much earlier or screwed around (Safin, Nalby) and wasted his talent.

Consistency is boring compared to flashes of greatness. But in reality, its much more difficult to achieve.

Clearly we just value different things. I'm 100% fine with that. In most things in life, give me boring consistency over glimpses of greatness followed by large periods of under achieving.
I value and respect your opinion.. Some do value consistence more over others.. But there is a reason why say Roddick isn't held in the same regard as Hewitt. And Hewitt was pretty much just a flash in the pan as far as prime-peak years are concerned. Hewitt did more with his time at the top and Roddick had a gazillion more chances then Hewitt ever had who really only had a big run at his best for a cup of coffee.

Safin as well.. He showed up once every 5 years had some more memorable wins then Roddick.(and probably a more memorable career)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
Roddick's career would look much different IF he could have managed a few key wins (or even just one) over Federer. But, that's a mighty bif IF that really only came close to happening once.

Personally, I like to think of this more in terms of Fed's greatness and Nadal's greatness than how much Roddick (or anyone else) sucked. I really don't think that's fair. It's a pretty tough measure for anyone to live up to.

IMO, Roddick is far from a great player. I think he got quite a lot out of his ability. He's not in the same league as Federer or Nadal so it's not surprising to me at all that he wasn't able to win more majors. If it was going to happen for him, he would have had to have peaked early like Hewitt (who also got quite a lot out of his ability). After Fed "took over", it was always going to be tough for Roddick.

Finally, just in terms of matchups, Federer is a terrible matchup for Roddick. His main weapon is the serve, which Federer could neutralize. Once they got into a rally, Roddick was always at a major disadvantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,582 Posts
I dont see roddick going into commentating after hes done on the court. you have to be more of a corporate personality, I dont see that in roddick. but, in the end one never knows..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,580 Posts
if roddick can't admit he lies so unconvincingly,
he better get ready to face personal problems unrelated to tennis.

who listened to brad gilbert by
rebelling against smart serving,
and being an ignorant pitiful loser with an obvious unagile body, that
prevents him from moving the ball on the court? not to mention the horrid technique-caused injuries?
roddick advertised his clownish junk food diet. of course, no one cared until stefanki told him to lose 20 pounds in 2008.
too little, too late, little boy.

Agassi, oh yeah. roddick says he should be forgiven for having meth in his body because Agassi was older and fell to the #144 rank...and Agassi begged for charity money from roddick's fans.

well, why would little Andy want respect in the sport world? no one cares; why should he?

stunted growth. delusions of greatness, and family dysfunction shouldn't be confused with harmless fun.
this is not wrestling... roddick.

roddick doesn't want to play a full schedule.
in a davis cup tie, he complained about his embarrassing slow feet.
he claims that no one should be penalized for hurting himself?
he lost the isner match and had to pretend it was a regretful result because he bashed the ball into the crowd and was penalized for the 1st time in his genius career.

he put up this self pity, grateful loser teary act
after beating murray and choking away wimbledon again.
if he had played djokovic, i doubt that he would've shown graciousness (his favorite word when he described his love for federer). the last person to constructive criticize himself is roddick.
he failed to win because he didn't have smart family and friends.
he has mommy issues; he can't disobey his money and fame-grubbing mother by retiring from tennis.
it may be why he has married a trophy giirl and has no clue why he screams at
the linemen/rule enforcers who remind him that the roddicks should've told him he didn't have the genetic gifts and brains to be on tv (abusing less wealthy people is nonproductive). the roddicks can't understand that sycophants aren't improving their tennis, & ALLEVIATING GUILT OVER BEING SPOILED BRATS JUST BECAUSE THEY throw themselves at philanthropy (charity tennis matches).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,443 Posts
I dont see roddick going into commentating after hes done on the court. you have to be more of a corporate personality, I dont see that in roddick. but, in the end one never knows..
Roddick would be something like Gilbert in that Gilbert makes "cool" comments all the time that he thinks are really funny, but they just don't play well in that setting (and the other guys have to save the situation so it doesn't come off too awkwardly). Somehow Gilbert is just such an oddball that it just sort of "works" for him (provided he has a strong team around him to do the actual commentating job). That said, Gilbert has gotten better over the years. And Gilbert knows a lot about tennis, far more than Roddick I think, so he does have interesting things to say.

No, I can't see Roddick being a good commentator or liking that sort of thing. But, he might be called on to do guest spots in the booth. I can see him doing that sort of thing.
 
21 - 40 of 76 Posts
Top