PDA

View Full Version : Roddick VS Federer - How Roddick wins/loses "comfortably"


Bottle Rocket
04-02-2009, 07:05 AM
Alright, I posted something similar to this in another thread, but the thread has been taken over by guys who think everything depends on the size of your biceps. I'd love to hear some opinions from the rest of you. I'm sorry if I am annoying anyone by posting this again.

This is in response to the claim that Roddick just needs to HIT THE BALL when he plays Federer and was lucky to get a break in that second set. These are MY thoughts.

First of all, Roddick is going to lose to Federer if he makes just a few errors in his own service games. He knows this as well as anyone, so he makes an obvious effort not to make errors. He needs to try and get forced or unforcered errors from Federer while still eliminating his own. Against Federer, he doesn't have a whole lot of other options. Federer returns too well for Roddick to play "loose" points. The pay-off when Roddick is purely aggressive, at this point in his career, and at this point in the men's game, just isn't going to get it done against guys like Federer.

Saying that the match went 3-sets mainly due to Federer losing "like 8points in a row with some weird errors" is clearly biased. How did Roddick lose his service game in the first set? Did Roddick not lose a few points in a row with some "weird errors"? Or were those typical errors for Roddick during his own service games? Why is it that only Federer loses because of "weird errors", but Roddick doesn't?

Anyway, look at their previous matches. Roddick can play out of his mind in terms of everyone's perception, such as hitting the ball harder than he ever has, being as aggressive as possible, etc..., but this never brought results against Federer. It never worked for him in the past. When he's won, he's been incredibly consistent, served incredibly well, and realized he isn't going to beat Federer from the baseline by hitting winners.

Finally, to me, it is very clear that when it's crunch time, Roddick has no belief in his ability to beat Federer or any of the top players from the baseline (Except Djokovic, and I can't figure this one out). This is also, in my opinion, a large reason why he doesn't try to.

You can see this in his matches against these players, Federer is a great example, when he is down a break point, or it's just a huge point in the match. He rarely sticks to his baseline game, this is when he goes on those suicide missions to the net.

This is MY issue with Roddick's game, but I understand it. He just doesn't seem to have the belief that he can out-hit Federer or out-move Federer on a big point. He will rush the net, often on some terrible approach shot, and get passed. This is justified by Roddick because he never made an unforced error (as he obviously can't stand to make with his forehand), and got beat. It was "out of his hands" he might say? I don't know what exactly he would say, but this is clearly a belief issue to me. Roddick never went on this Kamakazi net rushes back in 03-04 on the biggest points.

MY second issue with Roddick is his willingness to rally with Federer and other players almost exclusively with his backhand. In fact, I swear that I've seen him favor his backhand on a lot of nuetral balls that he could have easily taken with his forehand. I have never believed his backhand was terrible, but am sure that his forehand is better. I just don't he wants to lose with his forehand.

It just looks to me like a belief/confidence issue in these big matches. He doesn't want to lose by using his best shot - his forehand. He seems unwilling to put that on the line, and maybe rightly so. If he hits his forehand as well as he possible can against Federer and still loses, what will that do to him? It is a much more comfortable loss for him if he loses with his second-best game - his net-rushing, or his backhand.

logansc
04-02-2009, 07:12 AM
Nice post. I pretty much agree with everything you said. At the end of the day, for a guy like Andy, it's icing on the cake to knock off a guy like Federer, and if he is the GOAT, there's no shame in losing a three setter in the QF.

drakulie
04-02-2009, 07:19 AM
Fed is simply a bad match up for Roddick.

Fed moves better, changes pace better, serves just as good if not better, can change defense to offense **WAY** better, can switch tactics, etc, etc, etc.

logansc
04-02-2009, 07:25 AM
Fed is simply a bad match up for Roddick.

Fed moves better, changes pace better, serves just as good if not better, can change defense to offense **WAY** better, can switch tactics, etc, etc, etc.

Yup. It is what it is.

mawashi
04-02-2009, 07:43 AM
I would think that Roddick is a more one dimensional than Fed but he doesn't do well against Nadal too.

Roddick doesn't seem to do well against guys that change their game plan but he has tried to do something more. He has improved his fittness, his consistency n more importantly he did pretty good against Fed today.

He is certainly doing better than Novak!

mawashi

roddickrulz
04-02-2009, 07:51 AM
can i just say..........roddick serves much better than federer - roddick's serve was what got him to #1 in the world, federer didn't get to #1 in the world with his serve

roddickrulz
04-02-2009, 07:54 AM
but federer is a bad matchup for roddick

nalbandian is a bad matchup for fed

but nalbandian is an ok matchup for roddick

its not really about who has better strengths, its about how effective your game is against other players, but i do agree with some things the OP is saying - but not with the unforced errors bit.

devila
04-02-2009, 08:18 AM
People pretend it's his willpower and intellectual problem. His major problems are mediocre fitness and too much time without repetitive work on his leg and arm positions/strength.

He didn't live and breathe tennis.
In Indiana and Paris, he vomited after eating junk food, and sprained his ankles
with his heavy body losing balance.

He just said "oh, well" after a radio host asked him about the vomiting stupidity.

devila
04-02-2009, 08:24 AM
it's icing on the cake to knock off a guy like Federer, and if he is the GOAT, there's no shame in losing a three setter in the QF.Fed is NOT GOAT.
I'm not impressed with his game and bitter attitude.
Roddick, if he was in the same shoes, wouldn't get as arrogant and unaware as Federer.

DarthFed
04-02-2009, 08:30 AM
Fed is NOT GOAT.
I'm not impressed with his game and bitter attitude.
Roddick, if he was in the same shoes, wouldn't get as arrogant and unaware as Federer.

So who's the GOAT?

because greatest tennis player of all time (he's not if there is a GOAT it's Laver) shouldn't really consider personality as much as your making it should

TennezSport
04-02-2009, 08:44 AM
Fed is simply a bad match up for Roddick.

Fed moves better, changes pace better, serves just as good if not better, can change defense to offense **WAY** better, can switch tactics, etc, etc, etc.

This is the key for Fed against A-Rod. Feds movement, anticipation and general athleticism are so much better than A-Rods that Andy will always have trouble against Fed. Andy is not a naturally good mover, and while he has done great work in getting himself in better shape and being more aggressive, his anticipation and movement are still not that good.

Had Fed not gone walk-about in the second set (something he has been doing too much of since late 2007), it would have been a short 2 sets.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

WayneCM
04-02-2009, 08:48 AM
This is the key for Fed against A-Rod. Feds movement, anticipation and general athleticism are so much better than A-Rods that Andy will always have trouble against Fed. Andy is not a naturally good mover, and while he has done great work in getting himself in better shape and being more aggressive, his anticipation and movement are still not that good.

Had Fed not gone walk-about in the second set (something he has been doing too much of since late 2007), it would have been a short 2 sets.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

I see exactly wat ur saying up to the fed walk about its BS... One strength Andy has that many lack is almost absolute consistency so if ur level drops even a lil roddick takes advantage... Other top ten players play 1 set on fire then blow hot and cold where is andy ranges from warm to hot and thats how his success has come in recent times... And y for the most part he's rarely been blown off the court i mean ha gave rafa probably his toughest match in the SF's...

logansc
04-02-2009, 08:51 AM
Fed is NOT GOAT.
I'm not impressed with his game and bitter attitude.
Roddick, if he was in the same shoes, wouldn't get as arrogant and unaware as Federer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Andy Roddick fan, I just know that when it comes to sheer talent and ability, Fed has Roddick beat. 9 out of 10 times the better player wins.

devila
04-02-2009, 09:06 AM
If he was moving like a rabbit (he does this about 3 times a year), he would beat Federer, Nadal and Murray. It doesn't take huge smarts and concentration because quick-footed players with less smarts than Roddick have beaten them (Nalbandian, Clement, Schuettler, Monfils and Davydenko-of course not with Fed). Murray, Nadal, Canas, Volandri, Simon, Hrbaty, Safin and Djokovic beat Federer at his best.

devila
04-02-2009, 09:14 AM
I see exactly wat ur saying up to the fed walk about its BS... One strength Andy has that many lack is almost absolute consistency so if ur level drops even a lil roddick takes advantage... Other top ten players play 1 set on fire then blow hot and cold where is andy ranges from warm to hot and thats how his success has come in recent times... And y for the most part he's rarely been blown off the court i mean ha gave rafa probably his toughest match in the SF's...
He lost 6-1, 6-0 matches because he moved very badly before this year, and acted like he wanted to leave the stadium. Federer was very lucky to win in Masters Cup, 2007 US Open and this week with the break points and net cord ball drop.

TennezSport
04-02-2009, 10:08 AM
I see exactly wat ur saying up to the fed walk about its BS...

In 2004-2007 if Fed had 3 BP agaisnt you, you did not win that game as he would crush you, not even Rafa escaped that back then. Then Fed turns around leading 40-0 and gets broken; to me that's a walk-about in concentration, which Fed has been doing too much of lately. Roddick has almost always giving Fed a decent challange but if you want to believe it's BS that is your right.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

sureshs
04-02-2009, 10:41 AM
Fed needs to learn to avoid taking those chances with the lines, and use more topspin and hit a little away from the lines, like Nadal and Murray. Yesterday some of Fed's shots seem to be within the lines or above the net quite accidentally. A little change in timing, a slighlty bad day, and he is usually toast, as when playing Nadal or Murray.

JoshDragon
04-02-2009, 10:42 AM
Alright, I posted something similar to this in another thread, but the thread has been taken over by guys who think everything depends on the size of your biceps. I'd love to hear some opinions from the rest of you. I'm sorry if I am annoying anyone by posting this again.

This is in response to the claim that Roddick just needs to HIT THE BALL when he plays Federer and was lucky to get a break in that second set. These are MY thoughts.

First of all, Roddick is going to lose to Federer if he makes just a few errors in his own service games. He knows this as well as anyone, so he makes an obvious effort not to make errors. He needs to try and get forced or unforcered errors from Federer while still eliminating his own. Against Federer, he doesn't have a whole lot of other options. Federer returns too well for Roddick to play "loose" points. The pay-off when Roddick is purely aggressive, at this point in his career, and at this point in the men's game, just isn't going to get it done against guys like Federer.

Saying that the match went 3-sets mainly due to Federer losing "like 8points in a row with some weird errors" is clearly biased. How did Roddick lose his service game in the first set? Did Roddick not lose a few points in a row with some "weird errors"? Or were those typical errors for Roddick during his own service games? Why is it that only Federer loses because of "weird errors", but Roddick doesn't?

Anyway, look at their previous matches. Roddick can play out of his mind in terms of everyone's perception, such as hitting the ball harder than he ever has, being as aggressive as possible, etc..., but this never brought results against Federer. It never worked for him in the past. When he's won, he's been incredibly consistent, served incredibly well, and realized he isn't going to beat Federer from the baseline by hitting winners.

Finally, to me, it is very clear that when it's crunch time, Roddick has no belief in his ability to beat Federer or any of the top players from the baseline (Except Djokovic, and I can't figure this one out). This is also, in my opinion, a large reason why he doesn't try to.

You can see this in his matches against these players, Federer is a great example, when he is down a break point, or it's just a huge point in the match. He rarely sticks to his baseline game, this is when he goes on those suicide missions to the net.

This is MY issue with Roddick's game, but I understand it. He just doesn't seem to have the belief that he can out-hit Federer or out-move Federer on a big point. He will rush the net, often on some terrible approach shot, and get passed. This is justified by Roddick because he never made an unforced error (as he obviously can't stand to make with his forehand), and got beat. It was "out of his hands" he might say? I don't know what exactly he would say, but this is clearly a belief issue to me. Roddick never went on this Kamakazi net rushes back in 03-04 on the biggest points.

MY second issue with Roddick is his willingness to rally with Federer and other players almost exclusively with his backhand. In fact, I swear that I've seen him favor his backhand on a lot of nuetral balls that he could have easily taken with his forehand. I have never believed his backhand was terrible, but am sure that his forehand is better. I just don't he wants to lose with his forehand.

It just looks to me like a belief/confidence issue in these big matches. He doesn't want to lose by using his best shot - his forehand. He seems unwilling to put that on the line, and maybe rightly so. If he hits his forehand as well as he possible can against Federer and still loses, what will that do to him? It is a much more comfortable loss for him if he loses with his second-best game - his net-rushing, or his backhand.

I think Roddick needs to play aggressively from the baseline. That's the only way he will beat Federer. Roddick didn't hold back at the 2006 US Open finals and he came close to winning the match. Roddick won the second set and held easily during most of his service games in the third. Federer played a weak service game early in the third set but he was still able to hold. If Roddick had broken Fed's serve in that game, he might have won the match.

Roddick's biggest problem is that he doesn't believe that he can defeat Federer.

devila
04-02-2009, 10:43 AM
He's not capable of putting Federer into uncomfortable positions. It's mighty Fed, after all. At 40-0, I guess Roddick will give up again with Federer facing a gimp like him.

joeri888
04-02-2009, 10:46 AM
It's simple: Federer's just been a player who beat ANYONE for 4 years except Nadal. Now Roddick has an ugly record and doesn't have the belief he will win, and still if he's got the belief, he'll still win like 30% at most of the times they play, because federer is the better player in general.

Pretty much like Federer-Rafa.. Rafa surely is a bad matchup for Federer, but because they played on clay so often, and Fed lost there to the better claycourter, he has a really ugly head to head, which makes him lose belief and confidence when facing Rafa.

JoshDragon
04-02-2009, 10:50 AM
It's simple: Federer's just been a player who beat ANYONE for 4 years except Nadal. Now Roddick has an ugly record and doesn't have the belief he will win, and still if he's got the belief, he'll still win like 30% at most of the times they play, because federer is the better player in general.

Pretty much like Federer-Rafa.. Rafa surely is a bad matchup for Federer, but because they played on clay so often, and Fed lost there to the better claycourter, he has a really ugly head to head, which makes him lose belief and confidence when facing Rafa.

That's true but Nadal is starting to beat Federer on other surfaces. A few years ago Rafa wasn't able to make it into the later rounds of most hard court tournaments. Now he has beaten Federer on every different surface.

Fed still has a winning record over Nadal on non-clay surfaces but I think that's going to change.

MordredSJT
04-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Reading this entire thread I have to ask myself how many of the people posting here actually watched the entire match from beginning to end. I did. Roddick should have won that match.

From the middle of the second set on he was right there with Federer. He served "well" which is to say he served heavy balls at a very good percentage...but Federer just blocked most of them back and neutralized them as he usually does. What Roddick did really well was stand in with Federer in the baseline rallies and dictate not just with pace but with placement. He is not going to blow Roger off of the court. He has tried it before, it hasn't ever worked. He can move Federer around and create openings and good approach opportunities to the backhand side.

The match really swung on just 5-6 points overall. The problem is that Roddick continues to pick some bad situations to approach to Federer's backhand side. If he has time to set up his feet Federer will pass Roddick every single time. He also, for some insane reason, thinks it is a good idea to come in behind an inside in forehand and watch as Federer hits forehand passing shots by him literally every time. He made that play about ten times last night and lost every single one of those points. He wasn't even in the frame when they replayed Federer's forehand passes.

Seriously, the big lesson there is that Roddick is actually very close with Federer...he's just not smart enough to stop throwing away points. He also tends to tighten up and play more "conservative" on big points which is kind of what the initial post in this thread was saying. Sometimes just hitting an easy approach and coming in is a way of not losing a point. Roddick fears losing big points more than he wants to win them...Federer plays (at least against everyone but Nadal) with no fear.

icedevil0289
04-02-2009, 11:07 AM
Reading this entire thread I have to ask myself how many of the people posting here actually watched the entire match from beginning to end. I did. Roddick should have won that match. From the middle of the second set on he was right there with Federer. He served "well" which is to say he served heavy balls at a very good percentage...but Federer just blocked most of them back and neutralized them as he usually does. What Roddick did really well was stand in with Federer in the baseline rallies and dictate not just with pace but with placement. He is not going to blow Roger off of the court. He has tried it before, it hasn't ever worked. He can move Federer around and create openings and good approach opportunities to the backhand side.

The match really swung on just 5-6 points overall. The problem is that Roddick continues to pick some bad situations to approach to Federer's backhand side. If he has time to set up his feet Federer will pass Roddick every single time. He also, for some insane reason, thinks it is a good idea to come in behind an inside in forehand and watch as Federer hits forehand passing shots by him literally every time. He made that play about ten times last night and lost every single one of those points. He wasn't even in the frame when they replayed Federer's forehand passes.

Seriously, the big lesson there is that Roddick is actually very close with Federer...he's just not smart enough to stop throwing away points. He also tends to tighten up and play more "conservative" on big points which is kind of what the initial post in this thread was saying. Sometimes just hitting an easy approach and coming in is a way of not losing a point. Roddick fears losing big points more than he wants to win them...Federer plays (at least against everyone but Nadal) with no fear.

That's just as stupid as saying roger should have won wimbledon 2008 or he should have won AO 2009. Point is he didn't and should haves, would haves, and could haves don't really matter. I could say the same thing about how roger should have finished it off in two sets and would have had he not made those string errors when he was 40-0 on serve.

DarthFed
04-02-2009, 11:11 AM
That's just as stupid as saying roger should have won wimbledon 2008 or he should have won AO 2009. Point is he didn't and should haves, would haves, and could haves don't really matter. I could say the same thing about how roger should have finished it off in two sets and would have had he not made those string errors when he was 40-0 on serve.

Or 0-40 on Roddicks

thenjimmysaid
04-02-2009, 11:41 AM
It's just strange to me that I saw 2 points in a row that were played the exact same. Andy hits an inside forehand down the line, leaving Roger to easily pass him with a cross court forehand while Andy stands there like a deer-in-headlights.
And it happened twice.

I think it was also more than twice, as I recall laughing to myself in disgust to see Andy try that shot over and over and over.

I think the biggest thing Andy needs to do is put pressure on Roger, but by NOT charging the net at every ball. Every player has the ability to defeat Roger. If Andy played the way he played last year, and played more constructive points, then he might have figured out the winning strategy.

MordredSJT
04-02-2009, 11:44 AM
That's just as stupid as saying roger should have won wimbledon 2008 or he should have won AO 2009. Point is he didn't and should haves, would haves, and could haves don't really matter

I'm not disagreeing. Roddick lost. He lost for several reasons that I tried to expound on. The fact that he lost is what makes Roddick, Roddick and Federer, Federer...

If you would like I could rephrase for you...Roddick had the opportunity to win the match...

GameSampras
04-02-2009, 12:55 PM
Roddick was doing alright and could very well have won the match had it not began to think a volley game would work against Roger like he was Edberg or Becker or Sampras. Hes pathetic at the not. Why even bother playing Fed like that? It makes no sense. Stick to your strengths, not your weaknesses

Mansewerz
04-02-2009, 01:10 PM
It's just strange to me that I saw 2 points in a row that were played the exact same. Andy hits an inside forehand down the line, leaving Roger to easily pass him with a cross court forehand while Andy stands there like a deer-in-headlights.
And it happened twice.

I think it was also more than twice, as I recall laughing to myself in disgust to see Andy try that shot over and over and over.

I think the biggest thing Andy needs to do is put pressure on Roger, but by NOT charging the net at every ball. Every player has the ability to defeat Roger. If Andy played the way he played last year, and played more constructive points, then he might have figured out the winning strategy.

I agree. Even Gimelstob noticed this. The pattern would be Approach to forehand, get passed, approach to forehand, get passed, approach to backhand.

Roddick would lose 2 points by approaching to the forehand, then he would wise up and hit to the backhand once, then go back to the forehand. I remember it would happen twice in one game! Roddick squeezed out a few of those tight games, but a lot of times, Roddick would wise up too late and find himself in a tight spot.

This especially happened on big points. 4-5 in the third, Advantage Roddick, guess where Roddick approaches? To the forehand, and he gets passed like a hooker on wall street!

Roddick was doing alright and could very well have won the match had it not began to think a volley game would work against Roger like he was Edberg or Becker or Sampras. Hes pathetic at the not. Why even bother playing Fed like that? It makes no sense. Stick to your strengths, not your weaknesses

Agree here too. Someone else said it best: "Roddick hasn't worked on his strengths, instead working on his weaknesses. Now his weaknesses are okay shots and his strengths are good but could've been great"

Joseph L. Barrow
04-02-2009, 01:25 PM
Alright, I posted something similar to this in another thread, but the thread has been taken over by guys who think everything depends on the size of your biceps. I'd love to hear some opinions from the rest of you. I'm sorry if I am annoying anyone by posting this again.

This is in response to the claim that Roddick just needs to HIT THE BALL when he plays Federer and was lucky to get a break in that second set. These are MY thoughts.

First of all, Roddick is going to lose to Federer if he makes just a few errors in his own service games. He knows this as well as anyone, so he makes an obvious effort not to make errors. He needs to try and get forced or unforcered errors from Federer while still eliminating his own. Against Federer, he doesn't have a whole lot of other options. Federer returns too well for Roddick to play "loose" points. The pay-off when Roddick is purely aggressive, at this point in his career, and at this point in the men's game, just isn't going to get it done against guys like Federer.

Saying that the match went 3-sets mainly due to Federer losing "like 8points in a row with some weird errors" is clearly biased. How did Roddick lose his service game in the first set? Did Roddick not lose a few points in a row with some "weird errors"? Or were those typical errors for Roddick during his own service games? Why is it that only Federer loses because of "weird errors", but Roddick doesn't?

Anyway, look at their previous matches. Roddick can play out of his mind in terms of everyone's perception, such as hitting the ball harder than he ever has, being as aggressive as possible, etc..., but this never brought results against Federer. It never worked for him in the past. When he's won, he's been incredibly consistent, served incredibly well, and realized he isn't going to beat Federer from the baseline by hitting winners.

Finally, to me, it is very clear that when it's crunch time, Roddick has no belief in his ability to beat Federer or any of the top players from the baseline (Except Djokovic, and I can't figure this one out). This is also, in my opinion, a large reason why he doesn't try to.

You can see this in his matches against these players, Federer is a great example, when he is down a break point, or it's just a huge point in the match. He rarely sticks to his baseline game, this is when he goes on those suicide missions to the net.

This is MY issue with Roddick's game, but I understand it. He just doesn't seem to have the belief that he can out-hit Federer or out-move Federer on a big point. He will rush the net, often on some terrible approach shot, and get passed. This is justified by Roddick because he never made an unforced error (as he obviously can't stand to make with his forehand), and got beat. It was "out of his hands" he might say? I don't know what exactly he would say, but this is clearly a belief issue to me. Roddick never went on this Kamakazi net rushes back in 03-04 on the biggest points.

MY second issue with Roddick is his willingness to rally with Federer and other players almost exclusively with his backhand. In fact, I swear that I've seen him favor his backhand on a lot of nuetral balls that he could have easily taken with his forehand. I have never believed his backhand was terrible, but am sure that his forehand is better. I just don't he wants to lose with his forehand.

It just looks to me like a belief/confidence issue in these big matches. He doesn't want to lose by using his best shot - his forehand. He seems unwilling to put that on the line, and maybe rightly so. If he hits his forehand as well as he possible can against Federer and still loses, what will that do to him? It is a much more comfortable loss for him if he loses with his second-best game - his net-rushing, or his backhand.
Well, I don't know if I would say Roddick lacks belief/confidence overall, but I agree that he seems to have such a fatalistic view of baseline rallies on big points against Federer or Nadal that he feels like he has no choice but to come in. What he needs to understand is that, although he probably is going to lose the majority of extended baseline rallies against a Federer, his chances are much worse if he charges the net off an up-the line approach to Roger's forehand. I don't think he won one point off that play in the entire match.

Cfidave
04-02-2009, 01:47 PM
Wow, way to complicated. The single biggest reason Federer dominates Roddick in their matches is, that he takes away Roddicks biggest weapon, the serve. No one else Roddick plays is able to get as many balls back into play, off of Roddicks 1st serve , as Fed. Once the point starts from neutral, Feds chances of winning go up dramatically. Federer is the better player in every respect, except for the serve. Take that away from Roddick, and he going to have an almost impossible task, in beating Roger. This is the reason these matches are Federers to win or lose. Andy can try this, and Andy can try that, but in the end, it will come down to how well Fedrerer handles his serve.

deltox
04-02-2009, 02:13 PM
everyone seems to forget how Roddick tried to baseline play for years now with no results.. i personally commend him for trying something new, win or lose.

devila
04-02-2009, 02:54 PM
He had a bunch of break points this year, while in 2004-6 he had 0-2 break points a match (excluding Wimbledon). He didn't show up every match with few skills, like you think. It depended on his attitude and power level.

He weighs 5 kilograms more than others in the top 10. That's good, compared to last year.

If it's not an issue, why does he keep agreeing that his quickness is different in 2009?

Bottle Rocket
04-02-2009, 05:15 PM
Had Fed not gone walk-about in the second set (something he has been doing too much of since late 2007), it would have been a short 2 sets.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

This is clearly a biased statement and I don't like so much that you stated it as a fact.

Using your thinking, don't you think Roddick went on the same type of "walk-about" in the first set? Hell, if you're going to blame Roddick's success on Federer's "walk-about", then I credit Federer's win purely to Roddick's own "walk-abouts", including the one that he had in his final service game of the match where he was up before losing it.

I think I've seen Federer have more of those apparently "careless" service games in the last few months than I have from Roddick.

I think Roddick needs to play aggressively from the baseline. That's the only way he will beat Federer. Roddick didn't hold back at the 2006 US Open finals and he came close to winning the match.

He might have come close to winning in 06, but he came a lot closer last night. He's also been just as close previously playing a similar style, I think it was their match at the Master's Cup when Roddick had two match points?

A portion of my original post was written to address this. As others have mentioned in this thread, and rightly so, Federer simply hits better and more effective groundstrokes. He is obviously better mover, so Roddick cannot out-Federer Federer. He has to keep his errors down as I don't think he has a chance otherwise. Along with this, he must force errors. He was doing a decent job of this last night, but I will also admit that Federer wasn't anywhere near his best. I've seen Roddick and Federer play enough times to know that Federer has played much better against him.

Finally, the last part of my post addresses why I don't think Roddick will ever be more aggressive against Federer, not with his forehand.

Reading this entire thread I have to ask myself how many of the people posting here actually watched the entire match from beginning to end. I did. Roddick should have won that match.


You know, I agree with most of what you said, but in my mind, you lost some credibility with this first statement. I watched the entire match, first of all. Second of all, there is no more evidence saying that Roddick "should" have won the match than there is saying that Federer "should" have won the match. My evidence is that Federer won the match.

I guess your statement was addressed by some other posters, and you responded, so I'll leave it alone.

It's just strange to me that I saw 2 points in a row that were played the exact same. Andy hits an inside forehand down the line, leaving Roger to easily pass him with a cross court forehand while Andy stands there like a deer-in-headlights.
And it happened twice.

I think it was also more than twice, as I recall laughing to myself in disgust to see Andy try that shot over and over and over.


Yeah, I neglected this in my original post. This was one of the more frustrating things I have ever seen, but I've sort of gotten used it... In the same sort of way that Roddick has. I really get into the matches between Roddick and Federer for some reason. This type of play makes me crazy when I see it from some local 4.0's (or when I do it myself), but this is just ridiculous.

Hes pathetic at the not. Why even bother playing Fed like that? It makes no sense. Stick to your strengths, not your weaknesses

I completely disagree that he is pathetic at the net. He isn't the best volleyer, obviously, but he isn't the worst. He generally makes the volleys that he "should" make and he often puts away the vollesy that he "should" put away. I would argue that he is one of the better volleyers on tour and I say this not because of his technique, but because of his success. He often makes difficult volleys in the most pressure-filled moments of a match and this is more than a lot of players can claim right now.

And before anyone brings it up, as I know they will, I will not argue with anyone one bit if you say that Federer is a significantly better volleyer - because he is. Federer also (more so a few years ago than now it seems) comes in on significantly better approach shots, which is still one of Roddick's "issues".

Well, I don't know if I would say Roddick lacks belief/confidence overall, but I agree that he seems to have such a fatalistic view of baseline rallies on big points against Federer or Nadal that he feels like he has no choice but to come in. What he needs to understand is that, although he probably is going to lose the majority of extended baseline rallies against a Federer, his chances are much worse if he charges the net off an up-the line approach to Roger's forehand. I don't think he won one point off that play in the entire match.

Yeah. I think I agree.

Wow, way to complicated. The single biggest reason Federer dominates Roddick in their matches is, that he takes away Roddicks biggest weapon, the serve.....This is the reason these matches are Federers to win or lose. Andy can try this, and Andy can try that, but in the end, it will come down to how well Fedrerer handles his serve.

I don't think I agree with this.

I think you're giving Federer slightly too much credit here. I think Federer returns Roddick's serve incredibly well, I won't argue that. But I will argue that when Roddick is serving his best, he's still going to hold serve the majority of the time. This is obvious by watching this match, their 06 US Open match, the Master's Cup match where had the match points, and other matches on fast hard courts or Wimbledon.

When Roddick is serving 80% (something like that?) first serves in each service game, I just don't think Federer is going to break him, at least not right now. If he does, I won't be surprised, but I don't think Federer has things as "in his hands" as you make it sound. I think Roddick has a little bit more say in whether he holds serve than Federer does.

GameSampras
04-02-2009, 05:51 PM
I completely disagree that he is pathetic at the net. He isn't the best volleyer, obviously, but he isn't the worst. He generally makes the volleys that he "should" make and he often puts away the vollesy that he "should" put away. I would argue that he is one of the better volleyers on tour and I say this not because of his technique, but because of his success. He often makes difficult volleys in the most pressure-filled moments of a match and this is more than a lot of players can claim right now.


Alright.. Maybe "pathetic" is a bit too harsh for Roddick. But nonetheless, why was he coming to the net attempting to be some great volleyer when he ISNT. Hes playing one of the best to ever step foot on a tennis court, and he is trying to beat Fed with one of the weakest eras of his game? When has Roddick ever been a successful serve-volleyer or net player? NEVER. So why do it? Stick with what got you to the dance in the first place. Dont try and imitate Pete, Edberg, McEnroe etc. Its not like Roddick was playing some bum out there. He was doing just fine serving decent and playing from the baseline.

Bottle Rocket
04-02-2009, 06:34 PM
But nonetheless, why was he coming to the net attempting to be some great volleyer when he ISNT. Hes playing one of the best to ever step foot on a tennis court, and he is trying to beat Fed with one of the weakest eras of his game? When has Roddick ever been a successful serve-volleyer or net player? NEVER. So why do it? Stick with what got you to the dance in the first place. Dont try and imitate Pete, Edberg, McEnroe etc. Its not like Roddick was playing some bum out there. He was doing just fine serving decent and playing from the baseline.

Is it really the weakest part of his game?

This is hard to quantify, but I bet I could make a case for the effectiveness of his net play. I can think of less effective areas of play from Roddick.

I am not sure what you're trying to argue with me. Is your issue his volleys, his approach shot (suicidal net rushing you might call it), or his general game plan?

I obviously take issue with many of his approach shots and his suicidal net rushes on the biggest points of the match often anger me, but NONE of this means that he is a poor volleyer or net player. I've been more and more impressed with his net-play recently. Just because Federer might be "the best ever to step onto a tennis court" doesn't mean Roddick shouldn't try. I don't think Roddick came out and decided he needs to "imitate" pete.

Additionally (I realized you didn't mention this), just because Roddick doesn't "look" like such a great volleyer, not as natural, smooth, or whatever, as someone like Federer, says nothing of his effectiveness. This is like the pusher/junkballer/slicer that dominates the guys with "better" strokes. I don't care what you "look" like, we're talking about results here.

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick someone to simply MAKE the volley on the biggest points of a tennis match, Roddick is going to be high on my list. And I would have a good deal of confidence that he will hit a relatively effective volley.

GameSampras
04-02-2009, 06:57 PM
Is it really the weakest part of his game?

This is hard to quantify, but I bet I could make a case for the effectiveness of his net play. I can think of less effective areas of play from Roddick.

I am not sure what you're trying to argue with me. Is your issue his volleys, his approach shot (suicidal net rushing you might call it), or his general game plan?
I obviously take issue with many of his approach shots and his suicidal net rushes on the biggest points of the match often anger me, but NONE of this means that he is a poor volleyer or net player. I've been more and more impressed with his net-play recently. Just because Federer might be "the best ever to step onto a tennis court" doesn't mean Roddick shouldn't try. I don't think Roddick came out and decided he needs to "imitate" pete.

Additionally (I realized you didn't mention this), just because Roddick doesn't "look" like such a great volleyer, not as natural, smooth, or whatever, as someone like Federer, says nothing of his effectiveness. This is like the pusher/junkballer/slicer that dominates the guys with "better" strokes. I don't care what you "look" like, we're talking about results here.

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick someone to simply MAKE the volley on the biggest points of a tennis match, Roddick is going to be high on my list. And I would have a good deal of confidence that he will hit a relatively effective volley.

Im not really trying to argue with u. Im just making a few points from my perspective. Overrall I believe it was his approach to the match. Obviously he felt like he could come into the net on Roger and do some damage. Not the greatest idea. Not because Roddick CANT volley. Because its not really his game and definitely is not a strength of roddick's. . I didnt think he did all that bad from the baseline during the match. He didnt serve up an acefest but the serve did help put pressure on Fed and Fed came up with some UFE's due to the pressure. I dont understand Roddick's logic in this sense. He may get a few winners from the net but he certainly isnt consistently going to hurt Fed from the net. He pushed the issue a bit too much and it came back and bit him in the butt.

Roddick did have his chances there to take the match. Its not like he didnt have his chances. But he made some more decisions in strategy I feel. Obviously Roddick has holes in his game than Fed can exploit and Fed is obviously the better player . But over the years, there have been matches where Roddick did have his chances where he could have pulled away with a win.

And yes I do feel Roddick's net game is a bit weaker than some other elements of his game. His anticipation at the net leaves much to be desired. He isnt really a natural athlete in the sense where he is as fluid on the court as some others who have played the game.

The guy just isnt a "Serve-volleyer" in the traditional sense. So why try and be one?

TheTruth
04-02-2009, 08:31 PM
Reading this entire thread I have to ask myself how many of the people posting here actually watched the entire match from beginning to end. I did. Roddick should have won that match.

From the middle of the second set on he was right there with Federer. He served "well" which is to say he served heavy balls at a very good percentage...but Federer just blocked most of them back and neutralized them as he usually does. What Roddick did really well was stand in with Federer in the baseline rallies and dictate not just with pace but with placement. He is not going to blow Roger off of the court. He has tried it before, it hasn't ever worked. He can move Federer around and create openings and good approach opportunities to the backhand side.

The match really swung on just 5-6 points overall. The problem is that Roddick continues to pick some bad situations to approach to Federer's backhand side. If he has time to set up his feet Federer will pass Roddick every single time. He also, for some insane reason, thinks it is a good idea to come in behind an inside in forehand and watch as Federer hits forehand passing shots by him literally every time. He made that play about ten times last night and lost every single one of those points. He wasn't even in the frame when they replayed Federer's forehand passes.

Seriously, the big lesson there is that Roddick is actually very close with Federer...he's just not smart enough to stop throwing away points. He also tends to tighten up and play more "conservative" on big points which is kind of what the initial post in this thread was saying. Sometimes just hitting an easy approach and coming in is a way of not losing a point. Roddick fears losing big points more than he wants to win them...Federer plays (at least against everyone but Nadal) with no fear.

I think you're totally spot on. I couldn't believe how he kept employing the same losing strategy time after time.

Mansewerz
04-02-2009, 08:41 PM
I think you're totally spot on. I couldn't believe how he kept employing the same losing strategy time after time.

Even Gimelstob, along with the rest of the American commentating crew, were saying it was a horrible choice by Roddick. I swear, it was a replay every time. Approach to the forehand, crosscourt forehand pass.

TheTruth
04-02-2009, 08:51 PM
Even Gimelstob, along with the rest of the American commentating crew, were saying it was a horrible choice by Roddick. I swear, it was a replay every time. Approach to the forehand, crosscourt forehand pass.

I know. It was painful watching it. But, you have to give Roddick a lot of credit for keeping on trying. Several years back he used to be nonplussed about it, at least he cares and thinks he has a fighting chance now. He was ticked walking off the court last night. Good for him.

emerckx53
04-02-2009, 09:04 PM
Fed is NOT GOAT.
I'm not impressed with his game and bitter attitude.
Roddick, if he was in the same shoes, wouldn't get as arrogant and unaware as Federer.

Are you watching the same person? Unaware? Did you see the post match interview where Federer remembered specific points from Roddick's match 7 years ago? Have you not noticed how he knows how all current players are playing and can give specifics? Attitude? He is Swiss...he isn't some bubbly gushing Agassi...don't confuse his demeanor for being arrogant, he is nothing but class and sportsmanship. Roddick is the sniping little pric...mumbling between points when Federer would mishit or let cord or even when Roger was serving at 80% for first serves...that is no class.

PS. If you bring that **** to the forum you better be willing to back it up. You still owe us who is the real GOAT?

Bottle Rocket
04-03-2009, 08:25 AM
Overrall I believe it was his approach to the match. Obviously he felt like he could come into the net on Roger and do some damage. Not the greatest idea. Not because Roddick CANT volley. Because its not really his game and definitely is not a strength of roddick's. . He may get a few winners from the net but he certainly isnt consistently going to hurt Fed from the net. He pushed the issue a bit too much and it came back and bit him in the butt.

...His anticipation at the net leaves much to be desired. He isnt really a natural athlete in the sense where he is as fluid on the court as some others who have played the game.

The guy just isnt a "Serve-volleyer" in the traditional sense. So why try and be one?

A portion of what you mention was addressed in my other posts, the issue of why he comes into the net, and why he does so so often. I don't think Roddick was trying to be a serve and volleyer and I doubt he actually served and volleyed more than a few times. I think, to be straightfoward about it, he is avoiding the loss of points from the baseline - regardless of whether he can or cannot actually win those. I think Roddick hates having winners hit on him more than Federer hates having passing shots hit on him. It is hard to say it is not "his game" at this point. In recent years, he's proved that this is his game now.

I don't think it is as simple as him trying to do damage at the net, it isn't completely about short-term success. It is about constant pressure and this is exactly what has gotten Roddick the success he has had (yeah, yeah, I know). Knowing your oppponent is going to hold serve, get returns back in play, and continually put pressure on you to make a pass, even if the approach shots are poor, is going to give him a decent chance of winning any match. Constant consistent pressure. In some ways, that "loose" game by Federer in the second set might have very well been "earned" by Roddick.

Nadal's baseline play is an example of this constant pressure... How many times have you seen guys fight and come close or even win the first set against him, then completely widdle away for the rest of the match? I think Roddick, in a completely different and less effective manner, is trying to accomplish the same thing with his style of play.

I also said a few words earlier about Roddick's volleys, so I won't say much about that except I found his anticipation at the net pretty impressive in that match. I think his net game is underrated, but I won't argue that he can look pretty awkward up there seomtimes. His approach shots are often the cause.

Finally, I will completely agree with your statement that he isn't as fluid on the court as others. This lack of fluidity is especially evident against Federer.

Thanks for the constructive responses.

FitzRoy
04-05-2009, 09:35 PM
Good thread. Here are my thoughts.

I think you're absolutely right that Roddick loses if he loses just a few points here and there at certain moments in a few services games. It's unfortunate for him, but that's simply the nature of the matchup.

The core problem for Roddick is that Federer is essentially better at the three key areas of playing points.

Roger is better at attacking, both from the back of the court and from the net.

Roger's better at playing defense. Roddick plays good defense, but Federer's is better.

And Roger is also better at transitioning between offense and defense.

So, once the serve is put back in play, these facts make it more difficult for Roddick to consistently win points than it is for Federer.

So how can Roddick win? What's the strategy that he should go for? That's basically the topic of the thread, and I think it's an interesting one.

I do think there's a game plan that Roddick can implement to give himself the best chance to win. Basically, he needs to take a page out of the Sampras game plan. Which page? Well, it's really the only page: maximize the actual and psychological impact of your greatest asset. The serve. More specifically, for both Roddick and Sampras, this translates to making the opponent feel like they're playing the match on their serve.

Sampras is the best I've ever seen at accumulating service holds and allowing that to wear on the opponent over the course of each set and over the course of the match.

Roddick is also very good at this, so, if he plays his cards right, I think he can employ a game plan against Roger that's actually somewhat (I emphasize somewhat) natural for him. The unfortunate truth for Roddick - and this is the truth that makes the matchup so difficult for him - is that he's going to have to play somewhat outside of his normal game to have a real shot. But it is what it is.

Here's what I think he needs to do.

1) Make the points as short as possible on his own serve. Go for A LOT on the first serve. I mean bring the absolute heat, like he did in that US Open QF match. Push 150, push 145, push whatever he has, but bring it big. Try to end first serve points as soon as they start.

I would strongly recommend that he looks into serve-and-volley on first serves. Roger's natural, comfortable play is to float as many of those first serves back into the court. Roddick's net play has improved tremendously; the weakness is his overall approach tactic. So try coming in behind the big bombs and knock off some volleys. It's worked for Karlovic against Roger.

I agree with Bottle Rocket that Roddick needs incredible consistency within his service games to have a real chance at winning. But I don't think he can afford to play passively on his own service points. It's critical for him to get in and out of those points quickly, and not allow Roger any kind of rhythm during the Roddick serve. Basically I would tell Roddick that he needs to visualize each of his service games as a door being forcefully slammed shut in Roger's face.

The service holds early in each set are critical. If Roddick can hold early, then things can be interesting. If he comes out and gets broken early, it's probably over.

So that brings us to

2) Draw the points out as much as possible on Roger's serve. Go all out to bring everything possible back into the court. Channel Guillermo Canas if you have to. Block, bunt, whatever you can to get the first serves back reasonably deep. Play defense, try to work into the point, and extend the point. Make every point on Roger's serve as long as you possibly can.

On the second serve, try to hit a heavy forehand deep to Roger's backhand. Try to push him back off the baseline so that he has to work the point some before he can reasonably try to put it away. Again, extend it as much as possible.

When Roddick gets a good look at a forehand, give it a ride.

And do not come into net on Roger's serve unless you're able to hit a brilliant approach shot.


3) If all of that comes together, then Roddick can accumulate holds while putting a bit of mental pressure on Roger during his service games simply by making them longer. Maybe that will get Roddick some looks at break points, maybe it won't. But his serve is his biggest weapon, and he has to try to dominate the nature of the match with that. And this allows him to try and do what Karlovic does so well much to the frustration of his opponents who are, in general, simply better tennis players than he is:

4) Make the match come down to a few critical points. And then hopefully win those points.

I think it's safe to say that Roddick isn't going to be blowing Federer out, unless Federer's game deteriorates from where it is. On the other hand, Roddick getting blown out is a real possibility. If he can force the issue with his serve and dictate the psychology of the match, then I think he'll have more results like this most recent one (IE, a real chance to win), and less like the match at the Australian (getting destroyed).

Make the match come down to just a few points, either break points late in sets or points in tiebreaks, and things are interesting. Like the US Open quarterfinal a few years ago. Roddick can't ask for more than to have a result like that (well, other than winning). That match came down to a few points in two tiebreaks, and then one or two break points sprinkled throughout the match. That's where he wants it to be. He just needs to win those points.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Bottle Rocket
04-06-2009, 02:43 PM
That match came down to a few points in two tiebreaks, and then one or two break points sprinkled throughout the match. That's where he wants it to be. He just needs to win those points.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, really, I don't have much to say to that Mr. FitzRoy. I agree 6,000%.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 02:44 PM
I don't think Roddick felt very comfortable after losing. :twisted:

FitzRoy
04-06-2009, 10:24 PM
I don't think Roddick felt very comfortable after losing. :twisted:

Since he banked like $20 mil in '08, I'm sure he's feeling pretty comfortable

Bottle Rocket
04-07-2009, 12:11 AM
Since he banked like $20 mil in '08, I'm sure he's feeling pretty comfortable

He was probably more comfortable before Djokovic beat Federer while playing like ****.

That was the first time ever in my life that I thought Roddick could have given someone a tougher match than Federer.