Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Both retired and not coming back. Roddick is 'greater', but who was better (more dominant against the rest)? Soderling leads h2h 4-2.
lol I know who won a slam and who didn't.. the question is who was better when playing their best, against eachother and also against other top players. It's a very hard choice because Roddick did well against Djokovic and Soderling beat Nadal at RG. I can't even choose!Technically Soderling isn't retired so he's not completely finished. Though from previous interview he seems like he's done.
In any case Roddick won a slam so that would help that argument, but Soderling had chances to as well, but choked miserably. So dunno.
He wasn't even top 10 for long.
Roddick was better but let's not overreact
Roddick by a decent margin
Forget the slam, Roddick was the better player, for you to even compare them is laughable.
+1 & that's not even a question.Roddick and its not even close.
Roddick was certainly better than Soderling, but I don't consider him a legend either. He was a grand slam champion and 4 time runner up, yes, but IMO a legend is someone who has done much more than that. With the possible exception of his early career Roddick was never considered to be the dominant force in the sport. He was a solid top 10 or top 5 player but he would have had to have AT LEAST 3-4 slams and at least 50 or so weeks at world number 1 to be considered a "legend." At least that's my definition.No Roddick WAS a legend, he has been to multiple, multiple grandslam finals and should have won multiple grandslam titles. Again, stop using Djokovic, Nadal and Federer for the benchmark to everything. Unless you LIVED through the Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero Gaudio, Keurten era..... DON'T TALK. It's pissing me off now.
Ignorance is a virtue.
Your typical top 10 player reaches two Slam finals and takes out Nadal at Roland Garros ?