Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Lurrrkin'
Joined
·
18,058 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Not sure if this has been discussed to much degree in this forum, but I'll bring it up anyway.

I read some people discussing Roddicks losses at Grand slams on some Website. Since USO 2008 anyone apart from Federer who has beaten ARod in a Grand Slam has gone on to lose the very next match:

Code:
2011 Australian Open
Wawrinka def. Roddick 4th round
Wawrinka QF loss

2010 US Open 
Tipsarevic def. Roddick in 2nd round
Tipsarevic 3rd round loss

2010 Wimbledon
Lu def. Roddick 4th round
Lu QF loss

2010 French Open
Gabashvili def. Roddick 3rd round
Gabashvili 4th round loss

2010 Australian Open
Cilic def. Roddick QF
Cilic SF loss

2009 US Open
Isner def. Roddick 3rd round
Isner 4th round loss

2009 Wimbledon (Federer)

2009 French Open
Mofils def. Roddick 4th round
Monfils QF loss

2009 Australian Open
Federer def. Roddick SF
Federer F loss

2008 US Open
Djokovic def. Roddick QF
Djokovic SF loss
Going further on from this, since the 2002 Australian Open, Federer aside, 21 out of 28 opponents that have beaten ARod have gone on to lose the very next round according to the website. I can't find the information on his losses before 2008 so I'll need you guys to help out with that one.

What do you guys think? Something to do with ARod's game or the fact he loses matches he shouldn't or what?

Also I only just noticed how little Roddick has played Nadal at slams. In fact just once in 2004 where Roddick won. Nadal and his family do seem very superstitious. Either Nadals luck is even greater than we once imagined to have avoided this curse during his 10 slam wins or Uncle Toni has taken this into consideration while fixing draws.

Heh, seriously though since they're due to play one another in the QF at this years USO, I hope they do so this curse can be tested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,907 Posts
Well, first thing that comes to mind is not losing to players like Tipsy, Lu and Gabashvili just might help. In more ways than one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
The way he has played this year has been horrific even though im a huge fan. His form suggests it wouldnt be surprising to see him go out in the 1st round. He losses to players he shouldn't, perfect example today against Isner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
No curse whatsoever.

The scenario "X def. Roddick, then X defeated in the next round" only goes to show you Roddick didn't/doesn't care: X wanted to defeat Roddick more than Roddick wanted to defeat X.

And of course, since X is generally a mug (with some exceptions), he meets his just destiny in the next round.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,539 Posts
The curse will live on even longer, no one will beat Roddick this time :rocker2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,533 Posts
All this proves is that Roddick is consistently losing to mugs. :shrug:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Topspindoctor

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,361 Posts
Very interesting.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,580 Posts
youtube.com/watch?v=L2U1Ptcrkuw&feature=related

he was so proud that he wasn't in the Special Olympics and he made sure that the roddicks watched him cry humbly after finally passing the 4th round of wimbledon.
did he care to NOT skip the clay season and the precious charity tennis matches?
i remember how upset he was after the year end tennis championships was on the date of his charity tennis party in florida...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
lopez at wimbledon 2011 went on to win against kubot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,580 Posts
Does anyone know why Andy Roddick is so angry?

Actually, that's an easy one. He's embarrassed. He's not living the life he and everyone else expected him to be living.

Not that he has much to complain about. He's endlessly wealthy. He's married to a swimsuit model. And he gets to spend his days hitting a tennis ball around.

But he complains nonetheless. Because there was supposed to be so much more. You've heard this all before. Everyone oohed and ahhed over Roddick when he came on tour. That mammoth serve. That whip-snap forehand. That gritty will to prevail. Pete Sampras called him "the future of American tennis." And, just past his 21st birthday, he proved the future had arrived by winning the U.S. Open, ending the year at No. 1 and guest-hosting "Saturday Night Live." Many Wimbledon titles and Letterman appearances were supposed to follow.

Alas, it's more than seven years later and there have been no more Grand Slam triumphs. Letterman's booker has probably lost Andy's number.

And so the frustration comes out.

Roddick angrily freaked out at the chair umpire last night in Indian Wells. Roddick had good reason to be annoyed; the malfunctioning electronic net-cord monitor had beeped even though Roddick's serve had sailed well over the net. But even after the situation had been patiently explained to him -- if the machine sounds, the umpire is required to call a net cord, even if it's obviously in error -- Roddick couldn't let it go. His potty-mouth outburst came an entire point after the net-cord incident, following a racket-abuse warning. (Again, the umpire had no choice, seeing as Roddick had smashed his stick into a pretzel.)

When the umpire announced the warning, you could see the wheels turning in Roddick's head: This is a good time for a snarky quip. I'm a funny guy; everyone tells me I'm a funny guy, so I'll zap this jerk with my wit ...

"I'll give you a warning for f---ing ineptitude!" is what he came up with. Because it's difficult to pull out a winning zinger on the fly. And because Roddick actually isn't a funny guy. Americans -- and particularly American sportswriters -- have a tendency to confuse boorishness with a sense of humor, and thus the myth of Roddick's wit.

The real reason for Roddick's pique, of course, had nothing to do with the umpire. It had to do with the man across the net. Richard Gasquet was in the zone, showing the amazing natural talent that led observers to call him "Baby Federer" when he first came on tour. Gasquet won the fourth-round match in straight sets.

There was one shot in particular that showed how locked in Gasquet was. Down a break in the second set, Roddick recognized that he needed to try something different, something to shake up Gasquet's rhythm and confidence. He decided to throw in a serve-and-volley.

He punched a bounding serve into the outside corner of the ad court that leaped up high. Gasquet skittered sideways and backward, and whipped his backhand stroke at shoulder height. The ball careened toward the approaching server -- a watermelon-sized volley right at eye level -- but the hard spin and extreme angle were pulling it away from Roddick. It looked like it was going to land in the first row of the stands. Roddick let it go ... and it fell like a boulder, clipping the sideline. Roddick's head dropped and he considered, for a moment, smashing another racket to pieces.

Which leads us to another subject: Does any other professional sport have a more passive, laissez-faire attitude toward game-changing equipment advances?

Just a few years ago, that return of serve by Gasquet simply would not have been possible. Just as almost every forehand Rafael Nadal hits would not have been possible. New string technology has changed everything. Copoly strings grab the ball, allowing players to hit full out on every point and feel confident that the ball isn't going to sail into orbit. This unquestionably has impacted Roddick's career. Starting a few years ago, players suddenly were able to take full swings at his returns, something that never happened when he first arrived on the scene.

Pat Cash, the 1987 Wimbledon champion, is disgusted by this development. "For me, it's gone too far," he said in an interview the other day. "I think the ITF should step up and regulate string technology. There's too much spin on the ball and there's too much power. It's killing the volley and making the game more boring because you don't get the contrasting styles as much. ... Shots are dipping in now with these strings that, 20 years ago, would not go in, so you have to play more safely. Years back, you couldn't afford to hit the ball so hard because you couldn't keep the ball in the court. ... The only shot that the strings don't really help is the volley. You don't have the same control. You don't need power on the volley, you need the control."

So technology has wrecked a fundamental part of the game. Major League Baseball or even golf would never allow such a thing to happen, but professional tennis authorities are different. They seem open to the possibility of players with bionic arms in the future.

Yet it wasn't always so. If you're old enough to remember Ilie Nastase and the Great Spaghetti-string Brouhaha (I'm not quite old enough, but I read a lot), then you know it wasn't always so. When Guillermo Vilas walked out on his match with Nastase, tennis authorities woke up and quickly banned the strings. Vilas was a handsome and charming poster boy for the sport, in the midst of his best season ever on tour. Nastase was ... well, Nastase. The International Tennis Federation clearly had to do something.

The spaghetti strings were different in that they created a knuckleball effect, which called into question the whole integrity of the game. But is there any doubt that the copoly strings being used today have caused an even bigger alteration in the sport? blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/03/andy_roddicks_mad_and_hes_not_going_to_take_it_anymore.html
 

·
Faithful Txurigorri
Joined
·
24,903 Posts
heya :hearts: :worship:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,068 Posts
Nadal vs Roddick?

Is this a joke?

An injured Nadal will still take him out in 3 sets.

The thing is, Nadal was an amateur in 2004, and still gave Roddick a hard time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
I am a big fan of you heya after previously disliking you. Well done. You have some terrific linguistic skills unlike so many turnips on this forum. PS. I wish all the bad luck in the world on Roddick. It is not just his 'game' that is a stain upon the sport but his ****ish personality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,950 Posts
Does anyone know why Andy Roddick is so angry?

Actually, that's an easy one. He's embarrassed. He's not living the life he and everyone else expected him to be living.

Not that he has much to complain about. He's endlessly wealthy. He's married to a swimsuit model. And he gets to spend his days hitting a tennis ball around.

But he complains nonetheless. Because there was supposed to be so much more. You've heard this all before. Everyone oohed and ahhed over Roddick when he came on tour. That mammoth serve. That whip-snap forehand. That gritty will to prevail. Pete Sampras called him "the future of American tennis." And, just past his 21st birthday, he proved the future had arrived by winning the U.S. Open, ending the year at No. 1 and guest-hosting "Saturday Night Live." Many Wimbledon titles and Letterman appearances were supposed to follow.

Alas, it's more than seven years later and there have been no more Grand Slam triumphs. Letterman's booker has probably lost Andy's number.

And so the frustration comes out.

Roddick angrily freaked out at the chair umpire last night in Indian Wells. Roddick had good reason to be annoyed; the malfunctioning electronic net-cord monitor had beeped even though Roddick's serve had sailed well over the net. But even after the situation had been patiently explained to him -- if the machine sounds, the umpire is required to call a net cord, even if it's obviously in error -- Roddick couldn't let it go. His potty-mouth outburst came an entire point after the net-cord incident, following a racket-abuse warning. (Again, the umpire had no choice, seeing as Roddick had smashed his stick into a pretzel.)

When the umpire announced the warning, you could see the wheels turning in Roddick's head: This is a good time for a snarky quip. I'm a funny guy; everyone tells me I'm a funny guy, so I'll zap this jerk with my wit ...

"I'll give you a warning for f---ing ineptitude!" is what he came up with. Because it's difficult to pull out a winning zinger on the fly. And because Roddick actually isn't a funny guy. Americans -- and particularly American sportswriters -- have a tendency to confuse boorishness with a sense of humor, and thus the myth of Roddick's wit.

The real reason for Roddick's pique, of course, had nothing to do with the umpire. It had to do with the man across the net. Richard Gasquet was in the zone, showing the amazing natural talent that led observers to call him "Baby Federer" when he first came on tour. Gasquet won the fourth-round match in straight sets.

There was one shot in particular that showed how locked in Gasquet was. Down a break in the second set, Roddick recognized that he needed to try something different, something to shake up Gasquet's rhythm and confidence. He decided to throw in a serve-and-volley.

He punched a bounding serve into the outside corner of the ad court that leaped up high. Gasquet skittered sideways and backward, and whipped his backhand stroke at shoulder height. The ball careened toward the approaching server -- a watermelon-sized volley right at eye level -- but the hard spin and extreme angle were pulling it away from Roddick. It looked like it was going to land in the first row of the stands. Roddick let it go ... and it fell like a boulder, clipping the sideline. Roddick's head dropped and he considered, for a moment, smashing another racket to pieces.

Which leads us to another subject: Does any other professional sport have a more passive, laissez-faire attitude toward game-changing equipment advances?

Just a few years ago, that return of serve by Gasquet simply would not have been possible. Just as almost every forehand Rafael Nadal hits would not have been possible. New string technology has changed everything. Copoly strings grab the ball, allowing players to hit full out on every point and feel confident that the ball isn't going to sail into orbit. This unquestionably has impacted Roddick's career. Starting a few years ago, players suddenly were able to take full swings at his returns, something that never happened when he first arrived on the scene.

Pat Cash, the 1987 Wimbledon champion, is disgusted by this development. "For me, it's gone too far," he said in an interview the other day. "I think the ITF should step up and regulate string technology. There's too much spin on the ball and there's too much power. It's killing the volley and making the game more boring because you don't get the contrasting styles as much. ... Shots are dipping in now with these strings that, 20 years ago, would not go in, so you have to play more safely. Years back, you couldn't afford to hit the ball so hard because you couldn't keep the ball in the court. ... The only shot that the strings don't really help is the volley. You don't have the same control. You don't need power on the volley, you need the control."

So technology has wrecked a fundamental part of the game. Major League Baseball or even golf would never allow such a thing to happen, but professional tennis authorities are different. They seem open to the possibility of players with bionic arms in the future.

Yet it wasn't always so. If you're old enough to remember Ilie Nastase and the Great Spaghetti-string Brouhaha (I'm not quite old enough, but I read a lot), then you know it wasn't always so. When Guillermo Vilas walked out on his match with Nastase, tennis authorities woke up and quickly banned the strings. Vilas was a handsome and charming poster boy for the sport, in the midst of his best season ever on tour. Nastase was ... well, Nastase. The International Tennis Federation clearly had to do something.

The spaghetti strings were different in that they created a knuckleball effect, which called into question the whole integrity of the game. But is there any doubt that the copoly strings being used today have caused an even bigger alteration in the sport? blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/03/andy_roddicks_mad_and_hes_not_going_to_take_it_anymore.html
I like the part about boorishness vs real wit. Did you write this yourself or copy and paste?
 

·
Federer fan forever
Joined
·
12,903 Posts
sadly this shows the decline of Andy Roddick :sad:.He is losing to players he shouldnt .But some of those players are head cases like Tipsarevic who has never won a match after a big win
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
I am a big fan of you heya after previously disliking you. Well done. You have some terrific linguistic skills unlike so many turnips on this forum. PS. I wish all the bad luck in the world on Roddick. It is not just his 'game' that is a stain upon the sport but his ****ish personality.
I was obviously mistaken by believing that heya was the source of the article. Still it is spot on. Roddick's career in a nutshell.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top