PDA

View Full Version : Roddick - Federer Stats


Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 05:14 AM
I was curious as to some stats on these 2 after realizing Roger has spanked him 13 - 1 times for a stunning 92.8 % winning percentage. In contrast, the rivalry of Pete & Andre had Pete winning 58.8% of the time in 34 Matches

38 Sets of Tennis played between Roger Federer & Andy Roddick

30 of those Sets were won by Roger (79.4 %)

12 Sets required atleast 7 Games by the winner (31.5 %)

Of those 12, 9 of them were a Tie Break (75 %)

Out of those 9, 8 of the Tie Breaks were won by Federer (88.8 %)

-

No real magic quantam theorys here, but it seems to be, that Andy is really good about forcing what could be a potential 7-5 situation into a tie-break but then collapses. You have to wonder what the outcomes of these matches might be if he could pull off a tiebreak ?

The only tie break won by Andy was his 6-4 3-6 7-6(3) 2003 Montreal victory.

ATXtennisaddict
02-23-2007, 05:24 AM
Yeah, you have to wonder.

Fortunately, there really is no need since what happened happeded. Feel free to speculate on events that probably might or might not have occurred based on what you say here.

ATXtennisaddict
02-23-2007, 05:25 AM
edited because of post error

Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 05:26 AM
Fortunately, there really is no need since what happened happeded. Feel free to speculate on events that probably might or might not have occurred based on what you say here.

:confused: :roll: :-|

ATXtennisaddict
02-23-2007, 05:27 AM
:confused: :roll: :-|

Isn't it pointless to ask if Roddick might or might not have won if he got a tiebreak or two?

I mean, it didn't happen.

Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 05:51 AM
Is it pointless to look at numbers and stats in any sport ? Have you ever looked at X's and O's ?

Are you merely bored and feel it necasarry to troll in this thread with absolutely zero contribution other than to bemoan it ? Did you ever think for 1 second that a stat like this could be a pertinent mental awarenss for someone (anyone?) in tennis ?

I find the 88.8 % tiebreak success of Federer to be an interesting stat the next time I'm watching them play one

Try and contribute or stay out of the thread.

ATXtennisaddict
02-23-2007, 06:44 AM
Ok, I'll play along.

If Andy won more tiebreaks, he might have won a few more matches.

Yeah, definitely a ton to discuss there.

ACE of Hearts
02-23-2007, 06:48 AM
This thread is a joke.What if, what if, Fed has played so many tie-breakers in his career, the guy knows how to play them real good.

Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 06:51 AM
My apologies too the children of the board.

catspaw
02-23-2007, 07:16 AM
My apologies too the children of the board.

But, with all due respect, Nick, these 'what if' scenarios are hopeless. Life is full of 'what ifs' and 'if onlys'. The only thing that really matters is what actually happened.

What if Roddick had won his match point at Shanghai? He'd have beaten Fed for the first time in yonks, and who knows what would then have happened in the Oz Open? Fed might have suffered a confidence melt-down; Roddick might have ridden the crest of a ****-a-hoop wave and defeated all-comers. But he didn't, so it's irrelevant. The fact that he comes close now and then is by the by - he's had enough practice, and he still can't do it!

Added to which Federer is extremely good in tiebreaks, not just against Roddick, against just about everyone.

Nick Irons
02-23-2007, 07:20 AM
If was merely some numbers on the 14 matches they have played. It makes the next Tie Break all the more interesting knowing Roger gets 88 % of them.

I guess I dont get the mentality (maturity) of this board at times; they're X's and O's to add some tangible insight. What's the point of any stat ? Why berate the thread ?

alienhamster
02-24-2007, 07:45 AM
Nick: I've made the basic point you've made before as well. Roddick and Fed have played a ton of tiebreaks, and Roddick loses almost all of them. I agree that that's not a trivial fact. Roddick usually does keep his matches pretty close with Fed, but he often can't get it together enough at the ends of sets.

I understand others' points about this not being a huge discussion topic, but at least this thread is more focussed around a specific issue. And it isn't generically targeting Fed or Sampras or GOAT questions, like 50% of the threads in this section.

grimmbomb21
02-24-2007, 08:10 AM
I had no idea the only time Roddick won was in a third set TB. Federer hadn't even entered his prime yet. I think Roddick should focus on the rest of the field and hope that someone else knocks fed out. Like last year when Murray did it for him.

The tennis guy
02-24-2007, 09:31 AM
Roddick and Fed have played a ton of tiebreaks.


Not really, 9 out 38 sets, less than a quarter. Majority of sets are not that close, almost 70%.

MasturB
02-24-2007, 09:45 AM
Andy totally choked in that RR match in Shanghai a few months ago.

Grimjack
02-24-2007, 10:00 AM
In pro tennis, some people simply dominate others. Federer dominates Roddick in this way, 13-1 H2H.

Within that sample, lots of sets are played, but Fed dominates there, too. 30-8, H2H.

Within that sample, some # are bound to go to tiebreaks, just because of how tough it is to break serve at the pro level. But not only is the % that make it to tiebreak another issue of dominance (less than 25% of sets). Here, Fed even goes so far as to utterly dominate those few sets that DO make it that far (8 out of 9).

On every conceivable level, Fed owns Roddick. If you want to play "what if," you have to take it absurdly far. If Roddick had won every single tiebreak they played, he'd still be at a 22-16 deficit in total sets. Even with that utterly absurd "what if" scenario, that set differential would be enough to have around a 2:1 ratio of wins anyway.

Nick Irons
02-24-2007, 11:45 AM
I don't think there are any what ifs in the equation; you summed it up nicely :

On every conceivable level, Fed owns Roddick

Chadwixx
02-24-2007, 12:41 PM
Only reason roddick won that one time is because fed played terrible. He double faulted at least 11 times in the third set.

federerforever
02-24-2007, 01:05 PM
What if Roddick actualy knew how to return serve or hit a backand down the line or be able to hit forehand winners. What if Roddick was mentally tough. All those what ifs are really dumb because the simple fact is that Roddick does not have a single stength in his game I even think his serve is extremely overrated because Roddick's serve placement is terrible. Federer's serve is million times better than that of Roddick.

Nick Irons
02-24-2007, 01:19 PM
What if Roddick actualy knew how to return serve or hit a backand down the line or be able to hit forehand winners. What if Roddick was mentally tough. All those what ifs are really dumb because the simple fact is that Roddick does not have a single stength in his game I even think his serve is extremely overrated because Roddick's serve placement is terrible. Federer's serve is million times better than that of Roddick.

I agree with that statement to a degree; but that might lead us to another area of discussion

As much as I think Roddick sucks; how can we explain his 4 Finals appearances in Grand Slams ? What about his 21 Singles Titles ? Don't get me wrong, I think other than him hitting hard, he hasn't much court sense, but are his stats a product of parity or is he really better than we think, but unfortunately Roger is that much better ?

* A Note

I fin it interesting Agassi owned him even at 33 and 34 years of age.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Roddick%2C+Andy&player2=agassi

Chadwixx
02-24-2007, 01:36 PM
As much as I think Roddick sucks; how can we explain his 4 Finals appearances in Grand Slams ?

Go back and look at his draws. The guy gets about 4 top10 wins a year. Give any other player in the top 10 his draws and they would do equal if not better.

Agassi was a much better player at the end of his career. He hit harder and was more fit.

federerforever
02-24-2007, 02:30 PM
Roddick got to so many slam finals because everybody else this decade sucks even more than Roddick. The fact that a mediocre player as Roddick will become the number 3 or even number 2 player of this decade just clearly shows how weak this decade of tennis is. All the flaws that I have mentioned about Roddick apply to everybody else on the tour except for Federer. Sampras is probably saying to himself: "I wish I had it as easy as Federer."

ACE of Hearts
02-24-2007, 02:35 PM
federerforever, quit trolling.Sampras even said it himself, the players are better today.Sampras during the late stages of his career had a tough time with Hewitt, Safin, even Roddick to a degree.

tangerine
02-24-2007, 05:48 PM
Yawn. Looks like Nick Irons is just another boring Fedtroll. http://www.maxperformancetraining.com/forum/images/smilies/zzz.gif

alienhamster
02-24-2007, 08:13 PM
Well, this thread turned out to be sadly predictable.

(1) It's pointless to present arguments about whether or not Fed owns Roddick in terms of overall record. Of course he does. He also owns virtually every one else on tour. So what?

(2) It's pointless to make claims about Roddick's mediocrity when he's done plenty well over the last 4 years against a variety of players.

(3) It's pointless to talk about his record against top 10 players. Other than Federer, who's got a truly impressive record against top-tenners? They all lose to each other on occasion. And moreover, an "impressive" player who beats top tenners at a higher percentage but can't get past the second round at slams consistently doesn't really show all that much skill.

(4) It is significant that Roddick has that number of tiebreaks against Fed, cause Fed doesn't even allow most players many tiebreaks. I disagree with whoever above said that their matches haven't been close. A number of them have been very close up to the ends of the sets. I'm not suggesting these are all coin-flips. But they're certainly not blowouts (this last Aussie the GLARING exception).

Bottom line, for the billionth time: Roddick brings it at the majors more than anyone else not named Fed. That's what counts in this sport.

I'd love to get behind the psychology at some point as to why so many people get so irrational in their assessments of Roddick on these boards. Even fairly rational posts about his play are met with complete dismissals of his talents.

The guy can play. Stop pretending like he can't.