Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,684 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
which planet is he living on ???

from 2 weeks ago:

"With Federer's title, Andy Roddick inherits the Best Player Never to Have Won a Slam sash. Roddick, however, did himself proud on the green stuff. He was terrific for five matches and then, well, there's not much you can do when your opponent can hit every shot in the book and decides not to miss. ... "


and now onto this weeks laugh of the week

Last week you called Mark Philippoussis "a pretty one-dimensional player who battles impatience and has never been known as a strategic genius." I'd argue that this applies equally well to Andy Roddick. Roddick has two weapons: a serve and a forehand. He's not a great service returner, his backhand is suspect at times, he's sort of lost around the net, and he's prone to mental meltdowns. I'd argue that Philippoussis has at least as great a chance as Roddick to bag a Slam, if we limit the scope of argument to the next three years or so.
—Sandy Cash, Durham, N.C.


Just by virtue of having Brad Gilbert as a coach, Roddick has distanced himself from Philippoussis in the "strategically suspect" category. Roddick's serve and forehand are, unquestionably, the twin pillars of his game. But I think he competes better than most people think. You mention a propensity for "mental meltdowns," but with the exception of the match against Lleyton Hewitt two years ago at the U.S. Open, I can't think of too many losses that can be attributed to volatility or runaway emotions.

Your suggestion that Philippoussis might bag his first Slam before Roddick is legit. But I'd counter that Roddick is a superior athlete, has a healthier body, a more adaptable game, a better coach, and isn't as dependent on his titanic serve. No disrespect to Philippoussis, who did himself proud at Wimbledon and deserves credit more generally for having resurrected his game. But I just think Roddick -- in addition to being six years younger -- is a more likely player to string together seven straight wins.

As long as we're here, a quick question about Brad (Master of Puppets) Gilbert. The guy demands that Roddick lose the campy visors because they don't project an image of professionalism. But Gilbert is allowed out in public with that ridiculous floppy Metallica lid? Where's the "Justice for All" in that? Speaking of Roddick ...

Why is Andy Roddick placed in the same category as Roger Federer, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero? He hasn't won a Master Series tournament yet, let alone reached a Grand Slam final. And all his titles came in smaller events, where the fields were not impressive at all, except maybe for the last one, in which he beat Andre Agassi and Greg Rudeski. I like the guy, but all this pressure and hype seem to be going to his head and making it difficult for him to deliver.
—Allan, Exton, Pa.

We received a few questions on this, though I'm not sure if they were directing the question at me specifically or media coverage more generally. Surely, there is some old-fashioned red, white and blue American bias at work here. Roddick is the brightest American prospect, which counts for a lot, especially with the ATP Tour making its North American swing these next eight weeks. (We're guessing that Conan O'Brien won't be inviting Ferrero to his show anytime soon.) Yes, it would be nice if American fans could simply appreciate the tennis and root for players who didn't by accident of birth grow up in this country. But the reality is that it's not happening in the near future. And Roddick -- a Man Show-watching, movie-star-dating, backward-baseball-cap-wearing Steve Stiffler lookalike from Nebraska via Texas -- benefits immensely from this.

But apart from that, I think Roddick's tennis and his youth conspire to put him on the short list of stars. You're right that he's never won a Master Series event much less a Slam. But let's cast our lens a bit wider. The kid -- and he is a kid -- doesn't turn 21 until later this summer; yet he has reached the semis of two of the last three Slams, he's a solid top-five player, he's won on all surfaces, and he's tied the record for the fastest serve. There's no question that Roddick's real apotheosis doesn't come until he wins a Slam; he can't just create a stir with big serves and a hyper-visible coach. But outside the players you've mentioned, I'm not sure there's another pony I'd rather being playing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,274 Posts
If not Roddick, then who is the best player yet to win a slam? He's certainly the highest ranked non-slam winner. I agree that he is a better player than Mark P. So who else is there? Novak, Srichaphan?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,684 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Highest ranked currently he might be but he certainly isn't the best

I'd put Tommy Haas, Rios (he might be a injured dud now but he's still better), Enqvist, even Henman :eek:

yes most of them are near the end of their careers
overall they all done better, and achieved more in their games.
I don't see him winning a slam not until Andre retires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,274 Posts
TheBoiledEgg said:
Highest ranked currently he might be but he certainly isn't the best

I'd put Tommy Haas, Rios (he might be a injured dud now but he's still better), Enqvist, even Henman :eek:

yes most of them are near the end of their careers
overall they all done better, and achieved more in their games.
I don't see him winning a slam not until Andre retires.
Those players are all older, so they've had more time to develop their game, so its not surprising they've done better or achieved more. I think he means that he thinks Roddick is better bc of his talent and his game. He has potential to get even better while those other guys dont. I think Roddick can win a slam sometime, if he gets more consistent. I'm not a Roddick fan by any means, but if he plays like he did at Wimbledon this year then i think he'll have a better career than all of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
I think that it's laughable to suggest that Roddick is more talented that Rios :D He may very well do something Rios never did - win a slam - but he's certainly not more talented ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,980 Posts
ok why the hell would henman even be considered better than roddick hes never played good at anything but wimbledon actually im not so sure hes came all that far in wimbledon though i would have to look this up......and tommy haas jeez no.....goodness that is so retarted.....none of those players are better than roddick or do they even come close~! :eek: :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
And we're all dealing with one very distorted person - what the hell are you thinking? ALL the players that TBE mentioned have achieved more in their careers than Roddick. The only one with fewer titles and a smaller achievement in Slams is Haas, and even he has won a TMS and got to no. 2 in the world. All the others have more titles, have reached no. 4 in the world or higher, and have done better at the Grand Slams.

Note, I'm not trying to suggest that Roddick can't emulate or better these achievements since he is far younger than the others. But you can't suggest that at this moment in time, their careers and their achievements have been inferior to Roddick's, because they've actually been far superior. The only difference is that injuries have wrecked the career prospects of all those four players, whereas Roddick, his alarming propensity for pratfalls and tumbles aside, has sustained nothing major thus far in his career.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,460 Posts
ok andylover_16, i mean use ur head a little, and this coming from an Andy fan. the reason why they listed others as being better is because they have achieved more since they are older, so when comparing andy to them right now, they are better because they have done more. andy still has many years to get better and achieve what these players have already achieved and maybe achieve some more. don't get ur head lost in the clouds, be more realistic. i know he's ur fav but dont push it too hard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
You put it better than I could, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,938 Posts
LMFAO! I needed a laugh today!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Rebecca said:
I think that it's laughable to suggest that Roddick is more talented that Rios :D He may very well do something Rios never did - win a slam - but he's certainly not more talented ;)
Finally :angel:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
andylover_16 said:
ok why the hell would henman even be considered better than roddick hes never played good at anything but wimbledon actually im not so sure hes came all that far in wimbledon though i would have to look this up......and tommy haas jeez no.....goodness that is so retarted.....none of those players are better than roddick or do they even come close~! :eek: :eek:
How OLD are you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,225 Posts
TheBoiledEgg said:
Highest ranked currently he might be but he certainly isn't the best

I'd put Tommy Haas, Rios (he might be a injured dud now but he's still better), Enqvist, even Henman :eek:

yes most of them are near the end of their careers
overall they all done better, and achieved more in their games.
I don't see him winning a slam not until Andre retires.
What's Andre have to do with anything? If I recall, Andy and Andre haven't even met once in a Slam. Plus Roddick's beaten him before, so there's no intimidation anymore.

I would say Roddick and Haas are the best players that have never won a Slam but actually have a chance of doing so in the future. Guys like Enqvist, Rios, T. Martin, Corretja, and Philippoussis never won a Major and they never will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
TheBoiledEgg said:
I'm pretty sure that dickhead won't be going anytime soon on to any TV chatshows in Spain either :p
TBE, did you read Wertheim's answer? Although Roddick isn't a Slam winner he is the best of the Americans, so far. The US needs to start hyping Roddick maybe even more (as well as Blake, Ginepri, Dent, Fish et al) so that we can get the ratings higher, to make tennis a more popular sport.

If you've been reading threads on this issue, posters outside of the US have even said that, to an extent, the popularity of tennis in America affects the popularity of tennis (and the number of tournaments, coverage, dollar$ etc) throughout the world.

So, I think you should give your flippant answer some more thought...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
That's all very well, but if you hype Roddick and the other Americans excessively to the detriment of foreign players, it will be a self-defeating exercise. American viewers' expectations will be raised unreasonably so they will expect Roddick and co. to start win everything in sight, and when players from other countries win big titles, as they inevitably will, the sport will lose even more appeal and viewing figures will slide further down. The idea of an international tour where the Americans are a prominent feature has got to be marketed more - there's no point trying to pretend that Roddick and Roddick alone is the saviour of men's tennis.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top