PDA

View Full Version : without a big forehand is roddick just another Goran?


The Gorilla
07-08-2007, 06:51 PM
he's not very good anymore is he?
I think with the grass playing like a quick clay court, Roddick is finished as far as wimbledon is concerned, though he's in with a shout as far as the US open is concerned, and possible The aussie open too depending on the speed of the cuort surface they install.


to the idiots below who can't read:

The point of this thread is that without his big forehand, ie: he doesn't have a big forehand any more, is roddick now just another ivanisevic/Tanner/Curran etc?

TheNatural
07-08-2007, 06:59 PM
I think Goran had a better forehand. But I'd say Roddick covers ground along the baseline better and is more patient, even if his shots dont go too fast.

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:19 PM
Unless Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Davydenko get injured at the same time right before a grand slam, I don't like Roddick's chance of winning another slam.

BUT THEN AGAIN, there's always the chance that Gasquet might knock him out in the quarterfinals or something by hitting 93 winners.

latinking
07-08-2007, 07:22 PM
Roddick has a big forehand? LOL

CyBorg
07-08-2007, 07:23 PM
Roddick is almost done. He'll fair the best at the US Open, but be a complete sitting duck (no pun intended) at the other majors.

His serve will get him to the semi at least in New York. Otherwise he's not explosive anymore. He's hitting with more spin (I don't know why) and with much less power. Perhaps Connors was concerned that Andy's high-energy play was taxing on the body.

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 07:30 PM
Roddick is almost done. He'll fair the best at the US Open, but be a complete sitting duck (no pun intended) at the other majors.

His serve will get him to the semi at least in New York. Otherwise he's not explosive anymore. He's hitting with more spin (I don't know why) and with much less power. Perhaps Connors was concerned that Andy's high-energy play was taxing on the body.

Exactly. If you look at old Roddick videos, he had the ability to flatten out shots once in a while.

If he keeps playing this way, he'll just become a toy duck (no pun intended) waiting to be played by others, or he'll become a roasted rodduck (no pun intended) waiting to be eaten.

tennis_hand
07-08-2007, 07:30 PM
I think his new heavy spins is to keep his game in play and be consistent, because surfaces are slow and he can no longer blast winners.

latinking
07-08-2007, 07:33 PM
I think his new heavy spins is to keep his game in play and be consistent, because surfaces are slow and he can no longer blast winners.

Thats a good point

MasterTS
07-08-2007, 07:36 PM
What big forehand? sure rod can hit some big forehands but in today's standard its up to par with all the spai*****, argentines, and hmm just about anyone..

Feliciano lopez, nadal, gonzo, massu, verdasco, fed, tipsarvic, berdych, blake, just about anyone has a big forehand lol.. rod needs to either hit with a lot more spin or a lot more pace to break out of the crowd. Right now he's just inbetween.

saram
07-08-2007, 07:38 PM
Goran had a better serve, in my opinion. More variety and more dominant than Andy's is right now. Andy's was amazing initially, but people put to much hype in it now. I would much rather have Roger's serve than Andy's.

Everyone talks about Andy's serve and how it sets up his forehand. I have yet to see that win him anything major in the recent past. I think Roger's 'one-two' combination is much superior to Andy's.

As to your question, well...his forehand is not all that great. As mentioned above--he needs to flatten it out and make it more penetrating. His does not spin like Rafa's and get up as high--yet is not deep and penetrating as Roger's. It's a combination of the two that just does not work.

I'd take Goran's Wimbledon over Andy's US Open any day....

Char
07-08-2007, 07:41 PM
If he could compliment his serves with some volleying and/or a better return game it would help him substantially.

Kobble
07-08-2007, 07:42 PM
Goran had a better serve, backhand and volleys. Maybe even better speed. Goran was better.

anchorsteamer
07-08-2007, 07:48 PM
You guys are ridiculous...Roddick lost 8-6 in the fifth to Gasquet who hit 93 winners in the match...guy is far from done (except at the french of course)...and I dislike the guy...

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-08-2007, 08:00 PM
That's almost ludicrous to consider. Goran had a astronomically better volley than Roddick and with more variety on his serve, PLUS the ability of coming in behind it and actually have a good percentage he is going to win the point. His forehand was his weaker side, but seriously, that's almost a joke.... Roddick's forehand was always troublesome. Whether Wimbledon grass is playing slower now or not, I do not believe Roddick could come back and win the championship somewhat after his prime as Goran did. His game is being and has been bypassed by his generation let alone the next upcoming, playing between them as Goran did.

JW10S
07-08-2007, 08:01 PM
The difference between Goran and Andy is that Goran actually won Wimbledon. I can think of least a dozen or so players off the top of my head in the top 100 who have forehands as good or better than Roddicks. Without that great serve Roddick would not even have a sniff at the top 50.

rommil
07-08-2007, 08:02 PM
Goran had a better serve, backhand and volleys. Maybe even better speed. Goran was better.

....and Goran is way more entertaining...

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
07-08-2007, 08:02 PM
The difference between Goran and Andy is that Goran actually won Wimbledon. I can think of least a dozen or so players off the top of my head in the top 100 who have forehands as good or better than Roddicks. Without that great serve Roddick would not even have a sniff at the top 50.

Was my first thought...Goran actually won it, and after his prime even.

Kobble
07-08-2007, 08:02 PM
No, Roddick is not just another Goran. Goran could play on clay. Goran moved pretty well.

ShcMad
07-08-2007, 08:19 PM
Well...let's see. Roddick can't hit down-the-line backhands or crosscourt backhands with power; his volleys look unnatural and his touch at net is mediocre at best; his forehand used to be a weapon but now it's a floater; his serve has gotten more predictable and less powerful as time went by; his return of serve is pretty much non-existent thus making opponents out-ace him; his court sense is non-existent; it's painful to watch him trying to move around the court huffing and puffing.

I'll tell you one thing. I could deal with those problems and still manage to like Roddick, but I don't. Why? Because when the guy is on court, he constantly tries to get inside the opponents' head by trying to intimidate them unnecessarily. Whenever the opponent challenges a call, Roddick always laughs out loud and stares at the opponent as if saying "How dare you think my ball was out?" That's what the challenge system is there for, buddy. To be used.
Whenever Roddick's falling behind and makes a comeback, he feels like he has the right to insult and stare down at the opponent as if he's saying "What now?" If you see the Roddick-Tsonga match at this year's AO, you'll hear him say the eff-word towards Tsonga after Roddick hit a winner. When Tsonga clearly didn't do anything to offend him.
For whatever reason, I don't think that's the right way to pump yourself up.
It's funny how you only see this when Roddick is playing players of low-caliber. If he acted like that against Safin, he would jump over the net and probably choke him or something.

All these unnecessary Roddick antics made me realize how much I love seeing Roddick play Roger.

quest01
07-08-2007, 08:20 PM
Roddick doesnt have a big forehand?

MasterTS
07-09-2007, 06:02 AM
Roddick doesnt have a big forehand?


His forehand is big for tennis standards, but for pro standards its nothing.

Blake, djok, Andreev, Verdasco, Ginepri, Federer, nadal, gonzo, PHM, Gasquet, feleciano lopez, baggy, tursunov, korolev, querrey, del potrol, and just about anyone in the top 30 has big forehands. What makes roddick's stand out? Nothing!!! If anything, rod's forehand just sits up for others to pound.

Look what happen to rod when he exchanged baseline rallys with nadal earleir this year lol

Grimjack
07-09-2007, 06:20 AM
When Roddick still had his big FH, maybe then he was "another Goran." Which is to say a player who earns his keep with a gigantic serve, but has plenty more to hurt you with, and will thus contend in slams.

To equate the modern-day, less potent Roddick's game with Goran's is a disservice to Goran, and a ****-poor analogy. Goran was a fine all courter, who could serve you off the court, rally at a very high level, and play the net just fine. He had a far more complete game than Roddick, and was a much greater threat, relative to his peers. He simply wasn't quite lethal enough to get over the Sampras hump on the biggest stages.

The 2007 Roddick doesn't seem much of a threat to contend for any meaningful title. The days when he was perpetually "almost there" seem to be in his rear view mirror.

origmarm
07-09-2007, 06:25 AM
Goran had a better forehand, backhand, could actually volley and was entertaining and amazingly passionate about the game. Its just no contest for Goran really.

I agree with what I think is the point of this thread though, that Roddick is basically a serve and a half decent groundstroke
Roddick without the forehand is a Philippoussis, enough said.

MasterTS
07-09-2007, 06:28 AM
Goran had a better forehand, backhand, could actually volley and was entertaining and amazingly passionate about the game. Its just no contest for Goran really.

I agree with what I think is the point of this thread though, that Roddick is basically a serve and a half decent groundstroke
Roddick without the forehand is a Philippoussis, enough said.

Thats a disgrace to the man of age of love..

Philippoussis has much more directional control over his serve. Skud hits a lot more aces and knows how to volley. Roddick on the other hand just tries to blast the ball as hard as he can, which is why he doesn't get nearly enough aces.

schnick_15
07-09-2007, 06:34 AM
Roddick definately has more than just a serve keeping him inside the TOP 5, Karlovic is the perfect example of just a player with just a serve and he's only gotten to no. 40. His forehand may not be as big as it used to be, but I've seen loads of improvement in the backhand and his volleys in the
Gasquet match actually looked good.

And to say Roddick lost that match is almost ridiculous, Gasquet was playing out of his mind and Roddick still took him to two tiebreaks and deep into the third; Gasquet completely earned it.

origmarm
07-09-2007, 06:34 AM
Thats a disgrace to the man of age of love..

Philippoussis has much more directional control over his serve. Skud hits a lot more aces and knows how to volley. Roddick on the other hand just tries to blast the ball as hard as he can, which is why he doesn't get nearly enough aces.

Its true that his serve is much better. I guess what I was aiming for with that is that I feel that Philippoussis is all serve and volley. Roddick without the forehand is just the serve i.e. no groundstroke weapons

I take it from the Skud moniker that you're from that part of the world?

laurie
07-09-2007, 09:34 AM
Like most people here I think Roddick's forehand and groundstrokes in general have no penetration - they land midcourt as opposed to deep. He doesn't have the action Nadal has where Nadal can do that and get the ball to jump off the court, even on the higher bouncing grass now. Roddick just doesn't have inspiration - inspiration to improvise.

If your technique is not fundamentally sound, then it's hard to try something in the heat of battle and improvise, especially on the volleys.

It's hard to explain why such a strong looking guy has such lack of penetration on his shots. Maybe that's proof that timing is so important. This is just my opinion but the type of game Roddick wants to play, that racquet doesn't help.

I don't know what else to say - I can't see him ever winning another slam title. I also agree about his intimidation tactics. I've never seen him try it on Federer, in fact, he is usually busy hanging his head. That's the signs of a bully who meets his match.

The Gorilla
07-09-2007, 10:01 AM
Goran had a better forehand, backhand, could actually volley and was entertaining and amazingly passionate about the game. Its just no contest for Goran really.

I agree with what I think is the point of this thread though, that Roddick is basically a serve and a half decent groundstroke
Roddick without the forehand is a Philippoussis, enough said.

but phillopoussis has the biggest groundstrokes the game has ever seen

What are you talking about?

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 10:22 AM
Like most people here I think Roddick's forehand and groundstrokes in general have no penetration - they land midcourt as opposed to deep. He doesn't have the action Nadal has where Nadal can do that and get the ball to jump off the court, even on the higher bouncing grass now. Roddick just doesn't have inspiration - inspiration to improvise.

If your technique is not fundamentally sound, then it's hard to try something in the heat of battle and improvise, especially on the volleys.

It's hard to explain why such a strong looking guy has such lack of penetration on his shots. Maybe that's proof that timing is so important. This is just my opinion but the type of game Roddick wants to play, that racquet doesn't help.

I don't know what else to say - I can't see him ever winning another slam title. I also agree about his intimidation tactics. I've never seen him try it on Federer, in fact, he is usually busy hanging his head. That's the signs of a bully who meets his match.

The guy lost 8-6 in the fifth to 93 winners...what are you talking about????

J-man
07-09-2007, 10:24 AM
Without the forehand Roddick just has a serve. Goran had volleys and could play the net. Roddick not so much

laurie
07-09-2007, 10:26 AM
What do you mean, he lost the match didn't he?

Gasquet had inspiration, he got on a roll from a losing position. Precisely the sort of thing Roddick is not capable of because Roddick can't hit those type of winners off both wings. So you validate my point - thankyou.

Roddick will most likely never win a slam title again.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 10:36 AM
Roddick probably wont win another slam, though with Nadal and Federer you can say that about just about everyone else on tour as well. But Roddick's forehand is not pentrating? Are you watching the guy play at all? I personally really dislike the guy but the guy has a ridiculous forehand...I don't understand the rips on him for that (his on and off court behaviour please do rip away).

iamke55
07-09-2007, 11:00 AM
Roddick probably wont win another slam, though with Nadal and Federer you can say that about just about everyone else on tour as well. But Roddick's forehand is not pentrating? Are you watching the guy play at all? I personally really dislike the guy but the guy has a ridiculous forehand...I don't understand the rips on him for that (his on and off court behaviour please do rip away).

Are you in stuck in the year 2004? There are easily 50 guys on the tour who hit bigger forehands.

btw everyone except Federer and Nadal must be really bad at tennis since they are ranked lower than a one-dimensional guy who serves worse than Federer(funniest quote of the day so far) and has no ground game or movement or volleys.

The Gorilla
07-09-2007, 07:46 PM
Are you in stuck in the year 2004? There are easily 50 guys on the tour who hit bigger forehands.

btw everyone except Federer and Nadal must be really bad at tennis since they are ranked lower than a one-dimensional guy who serves worse than Federer(funniest quote of the day so far) and has no ground game or movement or volleys.


WHAT??????????

anointedone
07-09-2007, 08:19 PM
iamke55 is right. Federer's serve overall is the best on tour, except for Karlovic perhaps, and better overall then Roddick's serve. Federer does everything better then Roddick, even the serve, always has done everything better then Roddick, except in the early days Roddick was maybe mentally tougher then Federer but those are in the past now. There is more to a serve then MPH, and Federer has everything else on the serve except MPH over Roddick. It is amazing Roddick even beat him once honestly. Roddick has a superior serve to Nadal atleast, but Nadal is much better then Roddick in every other facet of the game.

Roddick's forehand used to be one of the bigger ones but not anymore. Gonzalez, Andreev, Federer, Nadal, Blake, Moya, Davydenko, Djokovic, and many others have bigger forehands then he has.

I honestly think a large part of his still being ranked in the top 5 is his determination. He does not get enough credit for how hard he fights every match, and how much he tries out there. He gives alot more effort then some of the other guys who dont have his determination, and that is part of the reason he is ranked so high with his limited skill set. He also has one of the best serves, although Federer's is still better. He also has a pretty good forehand, and decent in some other areas, although not among the best in anything else. To be honest he is a huge overachiever to be where he is, and if nothing else I applaud him for that. He wont win another slam title, nor does he deserve to win one. There are many more talented guys out there who deserve it more then he does.

superman1
07-09-2007, 08:24 PM
I guarantee you that Federer would take Roddick's serve over his own any day.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 08:24 PM
As for Goran, the rest of his game outside the serve was much worse then Roddick's, even though Roddick's remainder of his game isnt that great either. However Goran's serve was even more outstanding, which is their mutual best asset. I am guessing the latter is more important then the former, although neither are complete players by the wildest stretch of the imagination. Goran was also a headcase, without Roddick's consistency or determination. I dont know which one I would take, except both won 1 slam, that is about right for both I think.

Dark Victory
07-09-2007, 08:41 PM
Roddick's serve is more powerful, but I don't think it's better than Goran's.

Like most everyone else nowadays, Roddick just basically bludgeon's the ball in. When it was on, Ivanisevic's serve had great placement (who else could serve that waaayyy out wide?), employed better spin and had superior disguise.

On grass, he volleys much better than Roddick too.

Those aside (and to his credit though), Roddick's ground game is arguably better.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 08:46 PM
I dont find Goran had a good volley at all either. He missed tons of easy volleys in the net, and almost never made tough ones the rare times he had them. Billie Jean King and John Llyod commentating for HBO in the 90s both said they didnt think he ahd a good volley at all. He only came to net since he serve was so huge it was easy to hit a volley most of the time, not because his game up there was any good.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 08:51 PM
I hate Roddick, i think he is overrated but i am not an Ivanisevic fan.Roddick does more on hardcourts then Ivanisevic ever did.Imagine if there was no Federer, Roddick believe it or not could have like 3 to 4 slams now.

rommil
07-09-2007, 08:57 PM
I guarantee you that Federer would take Roddick's serve over his own any day.

Nah I don't think so. Roddick's serve is power, Federer's more of placement. Plus that jerky motion of a serve that Roddick uses with his motion has no place in Federer's repetoir of beautiful strokes.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 08:59 PM
Federers serve has power, placement, direction, spins, accuracy, deception, variety. Roddicks just has power.

quest01
07-09-2007, 09:00 PM
Nah I don't think so. Roddick's serve is power, Federer's more of placement. Plus that jerky motion of a serve that Roddick uses with his motion has no place in Federer's repetoir of beautiful strokes.

Yes i agree Roddick's serve is too ugly looking for Federer to inherit.

ShcMad
07-09-2007, 09:00 PM
I guarantee you that Roddick would rather trade his serve for 1/10 of Federer's natural talent.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:02 PM
iamke55 is right. Federer's serve overall is the best on tour, except for Karlovic perhaps, and better overall then Roddick's serve. Federer does everything better then Roddick, even the serve, always has done everything better then Roddick, except in the early days Roddick was maybe mentally tougher then Federer but those are in the past now. There is more to a serve then MPH, and Federer has everything else on the serve except MPH over Roddick. It is amazing Roddick even beat him once honestly. Roddick has a superior serve to Nadal atleast, but Nadal is much better then Roddick in every other facet of the game.

Roddick's forehand used to be one of the bigger ones but not anymore. Gonzalez, Andreev, Federer, Nadal, Blake, Moya, Davydenko, Djokovic, and many others have bigger forehands then he has.

I honestly think a large part of his still being ranked in the top 5 is his determination. He does not get enough credit for how hard he fights every match, and how much he tries out there. He gives alot more effort then some of the other guys who dont have his determination, and that is part of the reason he is ranked so high with his limited skill set. He also has one of the best serves, although Federer's is still better. He also has a pretty good forehand, and decent in some other areas, although not among the best in anything else. To be honest he is a huge overachiever to be where he is, and if nothing else I applaud him for that. He wont win another slam title, nor does he deserve to win one. There are many more talented guys out there who deserve it more then he does.


Roddick's serve is without a doubt better then Federer's, and to any of you that are actually serious about Roddick's forehand you've lost your minds amidst your dislike of the guy. I have despised the guy since playing him in Zonals in the 12's but comon...the guy has probably the best serve in the world and a top 7 forehand...which is enough to keep him top 5 for a pretty damn long time...and whats with the "deserve" comment? Who deserves to win one? What does that even mean...

armand
07-09-2007, 09:05 PM
To equate the modern-day, less potent Roddick's game with Goran's is a disservice to Goran, and a ****-poor analogy.Quoted for truth.

But they've had similar careers actually. 1 Slam and a number of runner up trophies. Guess it shows how the depth of men's tennis has changed.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Federer's serve is better then Roddick's serve.Roddick's serve is just a fastball.Fed's serve has placement and disguise.I rather have Fed's 120 plus then Roddick's 130 and 140s with ****** placement.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:05 PM
Roddick's serve is without a doubt better then Federer's, and to any of you that are actually serious about Roddick's forehand you've lost your minds amidst your dislike of the guy. I have despised the guy since playing him in Zonals in the 12's but comon...the guy has probably the best serve in the world and a top 7 forehand...which is enough to keep him top 5 for a pretty damn long time...and whats with the "deserve" comment? Who deserves to win one? What does that even mean...

Look at Roddicks match vs Igor Andreev at the French Open. Forehand winners were something like 40 to 3 for Andreev. So if Roddick really has a top 7 forehand, then I guess Andreev must have the best forehand in history or something.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:07 PM
Roddick is a one-dimensional player to be sure, but other then an even more amazing serve what on earth was great about Ivanisevics game. I have watched him play many times and I agree with what Cliff Drysdale and Fred Stolle, two respected tennis experts both said about him. They said if you return his serve he is completely out to sea.

rommil
07-09-2007, 09:07 PM
Roddick's serve is without a doubt better then Federer's, and to any of you that are actually serious about Roddick's forehand you've lost your minds amidst your dislike of the guy. I have despised the guy since playing him in Zonals in the 12's but comon...the guy has probably the best serve in the world and a top 7 forehand...which is enough to keep him top 5 for a pretty damn long time...and whats with the "deserve" comment? Who deserves to win one? What does that even mean...

Better? Faster maybe than Federer's but not better. If you can win a point alone with your serve then it's easier to measure the "betterness" of a serve otherwise what you do with your serve and anything after that constitutes a goo d serve.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:07 PM
The 90s have similar players like the ones in the 00s.With the exception of guys like Edberg and Becker who where going downhill in the 90s.

ShcMad
07-09-2007, 09:08 PM
Roddick's serve is without a doubt better then Federer's, and to any of you that are actually serious about Roddick's forehand you've lost your minds amidst your dislike of the guy. I have despised the guy since playing him in Zonals in the 12's but comon...the guy has probably the best serve in the world and a top 7 forehand...which is enough to keep him top 5 for a pretty damn long time...and whats with the "deserve" comment? Who deserves to win one? What does that even mean...

I don't discredit Roddick's serve being pretty good, but his CURRENT forehand being TOP 7?? You cannot be serious. Chalk flew up! haha j/k. Back to the topic, I can tell you that Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Safin, Delic, Verdasco, Gonzalez, Mathieu, Massu, Berdych, Tsonga, Ancic, Srichaphan, Blake, Ferrer, Ferrero, Bagman, Tursunov, Nalbandian, Almagro, Becker, Del Potro, Andreev, Lopez can all outhit him and abuse him in a forehand-to-forehand rally. Plus, have you ever seen Roddick being able to put away a short ball with his forehand? I certainly haven't.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:08 PM
The guy is done on clay any way you look at it so I'm not reading too far into clay stats...as for the serve I just can't agree...Fed has a great serve, but its not Roddicks (now if only Roddick had volleys, movement and a backhand)...

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:11 PM
The 90s have similar players like the ones in the 00s.With the exception of guys like Edberg and Becker who where going downhill in the 90s.

I think the early 90s had more depth the the current decade. The late 90s was similar though, not really any better, or maybe even worse. Remember Sampras was probably his most dominant in 2nd quarter of the 90s though, when the competition was still very good. I actually think he liked the harder the competition. It is funny to see how alot of his losses in slam events are not to fellow great players, but more second rate kind of players. It was almost like he got up for the toughest people and put on a clinic, and played down to players he felt beneath him a bit.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:12 PM
The guy is done on clay any way you look at it so I'm not reading too far into clay stats...as for the serve I just can't agree...Fed has a great serve, but its not Roddicks (now if only Roddick had volleys, movement and a backhand)...

OK point taken. Probably isnt fair to judge him via a clay court match.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:12 PM
I don't discredit Roddick's serve being pretty good, but his CURRENT forehand being TOP 7?? You cannot be serious. Chalk flew up! haha j/k. Back to the topic, I can tell you that Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Djokovic, Safin, Delic, Verdasco, Gonzalez, Mathieu, Massu, Berdych, Tsonga, Ancic, Srichaphan, Blake, Ferrer, Ferrero, Bagman, Tursunov, Nalbandian, Almagro, Becker, Del Potro, Andreev, Lopez can all outhit him and abuse him in a forehand-to-forehand rally. Plus, have you ever seen Roddick being able to put away a short ball with his forehand? I certainly haven't.

That is a rough list that I cant agree with...Delic? Are you serious?? Becker...Srichipan...Bagman? I'll back track it a bit, but I still gotta keep him around 10...just cant get over how quickly people forget that a week ago everyone was bemoaning the fact that he was stuck playing Fed in the semi's because he would definetely beat Nadal and now everyones saying he doesn't even have a top 50 forehand...crazy how it works...

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:13 PM
Look at it this way.Put Roddick down 15-40 yesterday in the 5th set in the final instead of Federer.U think he gets out of the jam with his serve?I dont think so.Thats the difference between Fed's serve and Roddick's serve.Fed's serve is more effective.

rommil
07-09-2007, 09:15 PM
The guy is done on clay any way you look at it so I'm not reading too far into clay stats...as for the serve I just can't agree...Fed has a great serve, but its not Roddicks (now if only Roddick had volleys, movement and a backhand)...

Maybe if you don't equate a better serve with speed alone you will understand more.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:15 PM
That is a rough list that I cant agree with...Delic? Are you serious?? Becker...Srichipan...Bagman? I'll back track it a bit, but I still gotta keep him around 10...just cant get over how quickly people forget that a week ago everyone was bemoaning the fact that he was stuck playing Fed in the semi's because he would definetely beat Nadal and now everyones saying he doesn't even have a top 50 forehand...crazy how it works...

I agree with there atleast. Delic, Becker, Srichiphan, Baghdatis, are crazy ones to put over Roddick on the forehand. Well some would argue Baghdatis but I think he is way overrated personally. The other 3 are nonsense. Srichiphan is way past his best days, and even then he was outforehanded by Roddick easily. The other 2 dont even have much of a ground game.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:17 PM
That's more of a question of nerves though...not ability. People had better jump shots then Jordan, but with 3.5 seconds left you got him the ball. I'm not equating it with speed...I'm equating it with effectiveness. Roddick's serve is heavier and better then Federer's...first and second...

ShcMad
07-09-2007, 09:18 PM
That is a rough list that I cant agree with...Delic? Are you serious?? Becker...Srichipan...Bagman? I'll back track it a bit, but I still gotta keep him around 10...just cant get over how quickly people forget that a week ago everyone was bemoaning the fact that he was stuck playing Fed in the semi's because he would definetely beat Nadal and now everyones saying he doesn't even have a top 50 forehand...crazy how it works...

haha ok ok, I might have overdone the list a little bit. Some of the guys I mentioned don't have the consistency of the current Roddick, but IMHO, they can out-hit Roddick in a forehand to forehand rally.

Just for the record, I don't hate Roddick, but the fact that Roddick USED TO have one of the deadliest forehands on the tour but not anymore bothers me somehow. I remember the days when his forehand looked scary and intimidating. You did not want to mess with it. Nowadays, everybody picks on it and gets away because of the guy's inability to crush it with authority.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:20 PM
Its pretty weird how his forehand turned into crap.I thought it was similar to Fernando Gonzalez's forehand.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:21 PM
I personally dislike Roddick...but are we going a little far in saying "everyone picks on it"...Roddicks not going to be a factor on clay and won the Wimby warm-up tourney only to lose in the quarters to a guy that couldnt miss...I think we're reading a bit too far into a loss here...

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:22 PM
My problem with Roddick's serve is that its too herky jerky.Federer's serve is a simple classic motion.Its very similar to Sampras's serve although he doesnt do the toe-thing but he turns his back and u dont know where he is gonna hit it.

rommil
07-09-2007, 09:27 PM
That's more of a question of nerves though...not ability. People had better jump shots then Jordan, but with 3.5 seconds left you got him the ball. I'm not equating it with speed...I'm equating it with effectiveness. Roddick's serve is heavier and better then Federer's...first and second...

Yet you seem to discount other factors like disguise and placement among other things that are equally important to executing a good serve. I don't care if Roddick serves 200mph all the time but if the other players start reading it then they will anticipate.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:28 PM
Roddicks serve is not particularly attractive...nor do I have any idea how he generates that much pace with it...but that kick is nasty and the pace is there...I'll take everything Fed does on the court over Roddick without even a second thought except for the serve...that thing is ridiculous...

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:29 PM
I personally dislike Roddick...but are we going a little far in saying "everyone picks on it"...Roddicks not going to be a factor on clay and won the Wimby warm-up tourney only to lose in the quarters to a guy that couldnt miss...I think we're reading a bit too far into a loss here...

Look at his matches to Verdasco and Mathieu though. He was being outplayed in the vast majority of the rallies, and only his serve and much superior nerve (compared to those two guys of course I mean) carried him through. I dont know how you can say his forehand looked better then either of those guys in those matches, yet you said top 7, and those guys probably are not above someone who has a top 7 forehand.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:30 PM
Yet you seem to discount other factors like disguise and placement among other things that are equally important to executing a good serve. I don't care if Roddick serves 200mph all the time but if the other players start reading it then they will anticipate.

Roddick has a better serve then Federer...I don't see how Federer's placement makes up for it, as Roddick's gets more free points off it then Federer...Not taking anything away from Fed, as he places it well and backs it up even better but if we're just talking serve, I'll take Roddicks any day over Federer's...

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:32 PM
Verdasco's forehand is bigger then Roddick right now.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:32 PM
Look at his matches to Verdasco and Mathieu though. He was being outplayed in the vast majority of the rallies, and only his serve and much superior nerve (compared to those two guys of course I mean) carried him through. I dont know how you can say his forehand looked better then either of those guys in those matches, yet you said top 7, and those guys probably are not above someone who has a top 7 forehand.

From what I saw, its his backhand that continues to kill him...the forehand is there...that slice backhand though just doesnt have enough on it to hurt people...the guy is all serve and forehand...but its a hell of a serve and pretty damn good forehand

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:35 PM
From what I saw, its his backhand that continues to kill him...the forehand is there...that slice backhand though just doesnt have enough on it to hurt people...the guy is all serve and forehand...but its a hell of a serve and pretty damn good forehand

OK I will match those matches again on tape sometime, when it is rainy out or I want something to do in the background while doing house cleaning or something. :p I thought I remembered him being outplayed forehand to forehand quite regularly in both, as oppose to just his backhand being picked on.

rommil
07-09-2007, 09:35 PM
Roddick has a better serve then Federer...I don't see how Federer's placement makes up for it, as Roddick's gets more free points off it then Federer...Not taking anything away from Fed, as he places it well and backs it up even better but if we're just talking serve, I'll take Roddicks any day over Federer's...

Not enough free points to win the tournament.I would take Federer's any day.

Shinpachi222
07-09-2007, 09:37 PM
I think Roddick is WAY overrated, especially here in the U.S. He may have a big serve and all, but I don't see him as being too spectacular these days.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:38 PM
Not enough free points to win the tournament.I would take Federer's any day.

Federer certainly didn't win the tournament because of his serve though...He can do everything else...the question though is would you take Federers serve over Roddicks? I really dont think so...the thought of Federer with Roddicks serve is downright scary...how would you break him?

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:41 PM
I think Roddick is WAY overrated, especially here in the U.S. He may have a big serve and all, but I don't see him as being too spectacular these days.

guy has been top 5 in the world for how many weeks? He's obviousaly no Sampras or Agassi, but it seems like on this board at least he's wildly underrated...guy just won Queens and lost 8-6 in the fifth in the quarters...

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:47 PM
Federer certainly didn't win the tournament because of his serve though...He can do everything else...the question though is would you take Federers serve over Roddicks? I really dont think so...the thought of Federer with Roddicks serve is downright scary...how would you break him?

Federer did win the final in large part because of his serve. His ground game was sluggish and subpar for him, and Nadal had the slight edge in that category in the final. Federer won alot of points with his serve, and at the net as well. He definitely needed the serve that day to win the final.

superman1
07-09-2007, 09:50 PM
I can't even believe people are questioning Roddick's serve. He is #3 in aces behind Ljubicic and Karlovic, and gets a ton of free points from unreturnables and weak returns. If Federer had a serve like that, I can't see him losing a single match.

rommil
07-09-2007, 09:50 PM
Federer certainly didn't win the tournament because of his serve though...He can do everything else...the question though is would you take Federers serve over Roddicks? I really dont think so...the thought of Federer with Roddicks serve is downright scary...how would you break him?

1)What part of Federer's game made a difference towards the end of the 5th set against Nadal?
2)Yes, I would take Federer's serve over Roddicks.
3)It is scary since that jerky motion wouldn't fit with the rest of Roger's game. Look it is possible that Roger can change his motion to come up with a BIGGER serve.Roddick's serve when he first came on the tour was crushing especially that the players didn't deal with the consistent power from a serve. Fast forward now when a lot of the players learned to deal with it. The wow factor from the power is diminished because they can anticipte it and read where it's going and they think that as long as they can return it, usually by blocking it back.

dukemunson
07-09-2007, 09:59 PM
1)What part of Federer's game made a difference towards the end of the 5th set against Nadal?
2)Yes, I would take Federer's serve over Roddicks.
3)It is scary since that jerky motion wouldn't fit with the rest of Roger's game. Look it is possible that Roger can change his motion to come up with a BIGGER serve.Roddick's serve when he first came on the tour was crushing especially that the players didn't deal with the consistent power from a serve. Fast forward now when a lot of the players learned to deal with it. The wow factor from the power is diminished because they can anticipte it and read where it's going and they think that as long as they can return it, usually by blocking it back.

But Roddicks gets that many free points every match...not just at the end of a particular set. You are blinded by the brilliance of what Federer does after the serve, as Roddick gets a lot more free points off his serve then Federer. Players do block Roddicks serve back...just not often enough to take him out of the top 5 in the last 4 years. Roddick really doesnt get broken often (though as was telling from his tiebreak record of 24-3, he doesn't break very often either). The jerky motion wouldn't fit Federers game? Maybe thats true, but if he had Roddicks jerky serve...he'd be that much better...

rommil
07-09-2007, 10:08 PM
But Roddicks gets that many free points every match...not just at the end of a particular set. You are blinded by the brilliance of what Federer does after the serve, as Roddick gets a lot more free points off his serve then Federer. Players do block Roddicks serve back...just not often enough to take him out of the top 5 in the last 4 years. Roddick really doesnt get broken often (though as was telling from his tiebreak record of 24-3, he doesn't break very often either). The jerky motion wouldn't fit Federers game? Maybe thats true, but if he had Roddicks jerky serve...he'd be that much better...

Like I said Roger can possibly hit it as hard as Roddick but he doesn't. Your contention that a heavy hard serve equals a better serve is still flawed.

origmarm
07-09-2007, 11:31 PM
but phillopoussis has the biggest groundstrokes the game has ever seen

What are you talking about?

Perhaps I'm having a memory lapse here but I remember him as a blasting serve and some good volleys but not such great groundstrokes. That said it was a good 10yrs ago now so its possible I could be wrong on this one

The Gorilla
07-10-2007, 01:21 AM
^^
np .

david22
07-10-2007, 01:25 AM
Actually,despite not being a fan of Rodick,i have a lot of respect for him as he has been able to achieve a lot without necessarly having a lot of talent

dukemunson
07-10-2007, 08:13 AM
Like I said Roger can possibly hit it as hard as Roddick but he doesn't. Your contention that a heavy hard serve equals a better serve is still flawed.

Your not making a coherent argument here. Roddick hits a hard serve...agreed. But it's also more effective then Federers and as such Roddick gets more free points off of it. Of course a heavy hard serve doesn't equal a better serve, its just in this case that a heavy hard serve is the better serve. I'm not taking anything away from Federer...but if we are just talking serve, nothing after it...you have to take Roddicks as he gets more free points then Fed. That's the thing with Federer though, you get his serve back and your in trouble...If you can get Roddick's serve back you gotta like your chances...

Eviscerator
07-10-2007, 08:21 AM
he's not very good anymore is he?
I think with the grass playing like a quick clay court, Roddick is finished as far as wimbledon is concerned, though he's in with a shout as far as the US open is concerned, and possible The aussie open too depending on the speed of the cuort surface they install.


to the idiots below who can't read:

The point of this thread is that without his big forehand, ie: he doesn't have a big forehand any more, is roddick now just another ivanisevic/Tanner/Curran etc?


For starters, I don't accept your premise that Goran was just a guy with a big serve. He had all sorts of talent and could play on different surfaces as well. His biggest problem was his mental game, or lack there of. You put another players brain (say Jim Couriers) in Goran and he would have been a much better player given all the talent he possessed.

junbumkim
07-10-2007, 08:23 AM
Having weapons and techniques can make you a good player. But you need the mental strength to play in top level.

Roddick's a lot more mentally stronger and smarter than Goran. If you have read Roddick's interview he's very well aware of the progress of the match and the way each point was played. And he's able to make adjustments w/i his capability. It doesn't always bring success, but at least he knows what he's doing.

Roddick probably doesn't move as well, and doesn't have the greatest backhand, but I think his serve and forehand does compensate for it to certain extent.

You don't stay in top 10 by being lucky.

anchorsteamer
07-10-2007, 11:14 PM
goran was and still is my favorite player of all time, but I'll take Roddick's game and career over Gorans...