PDA

View Full Version : Roddick v. Murray - Wimbledon Semifinal


tvp900
06-20-2009, 10:38 AM
For those of you who know me on this forum, you know I'm a major Roddick fan, so I might be a bit biased. But I think if someone doesn't take out Del Potro in an early round, Roddick has the edge against him. Especially on the grass courts he's had such success on. Then, statistically, he would meet Murray in the semis. I predict Roddick making the final this year. But hear me out first:

1. Roddick himself has said that he isn't in that illustrious group of Grand Slam potentials so he has virtually no pressure on him and he's fitter than he's been in a long time.

2. Murray has come up short on several occasions in the grand slam department over the last 12 months and has MASSIVE pressure to win on his home courts or win a slam at all.

Maybe it will all FINALLY come together for Roddick and he'll have a shot at another slam trophy to match the dusty one from 2003

joeri888
06-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Quite well a possible semifinal, and it could be absolutely MINDBLOWING good, or it could be a walk in the park for Murray. Either way, it's way too early to talk about this one, but I'd kinda like it to happen, especially the Roddick part.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 10:44 AM
For those of you who know me on this forum, you know I'm a major Roddick fan, so I might be a bit biased. But I think if someone doesn't take out Del Potro in an early round, Roddick has the edge against him. Especially on the grass courts he's had such success on. Then, statistically, he would meet Murray in the semis. I predict Roddick making the final this year. But hear me out first:

1. Roddick himself has said that he isn't in that illustrious group of Grand Slam potentials so he has virtually no pressure on him and he's fitter than he's been in a long time.

2. Murray has come up short on several occasions in the grand slam department over the last 12 months and has MASSIVE pressure to win on his home courts or win a slam at all.

Maybe it will all FINALLY come together for Roddick and he'll have a shot at another slam trophy to match the dusty one from 2003

Murray has come up short once in the last 12 months. That was in Australia, where he was ill.

IvanAndreevich
06-20-2009, 10:57 AM
There is a big "IF" - that's Roddick's ankle injury. That's why I think DP will be in the semis. Wouldn't mind seeing Roddick there either, though.

zagor
06-20-2009, 10:58 AM
I still think Roddick needs someone to take Murray out for him,Murray's just a terrible match-up for him.

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 11:00 AM
I still think Roddick needs someone to take Murray out for him,Murray's just a terrible match-up for him.

Roddick can't be counted out of any match on a non clay surface mainly due to the fact if he has a great serving day he can beat anyone.

joeri888
06-20-2009, 11:01 AM
I still think Roddick needs someone to take Murray out for him,Murray's just a terrible match-up for him.

I kind of agree, but ROddick's always got a shot against anyone if he's got a good serving day. He's not gonna lose too many games on serve.

Can anyone tell me how their match at TMC last year was? Roddick won a set 6-1

shadows
06-20-2009, 11:02 AM
There is a big "IF" - that's Roddick's ankle injury. That's why I think DP will be in the semis. Wouldn't mind seeing Roddick there either, though.

naw it's a tiny tiny if; Roddick said the time needed to recover from the injury was days, not weeks, so I expect him to be fighting fit and ready to go.

It could be a great match if it happens; if Roddick is going to get close it will have to be a monumental effort on his part though imo. I dunno, I just find it hard to see him knocking over Murray without a fight, whist I can actually see Murray rolling Roddick if he's playing great

maddogz32
06-20-2009, 11:04 AM
roddick and murray arent going to win anyways

maximo
06-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Murray would win it easy.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:05 AM
Roddick can't be counted out of any match on a non clay surface mainly due to the fact if he has a great serving day he can beat anyone.

I kind of agree, but ROddick's always got a shot against anyone if he's got a good serving day. He's not gonna lose too many games on serve.

Can anyone tell me how their match at TMC last year was? Roddick won a set 6-1

I agree that you can never count out Roddick,especially on grass.But Murray is really one of the best(if not the best)on tour at neutralizing big serves so serving him off court is very difficult IMO.So I feel that Roddick will have to play great from the baseline as well,and be very agressive with his FH(try not to get into cat and mouse play with Murray)if he wants to beat Murray.

tacou
06-20-2009, 11:06 AM
I eagerly anticipate this match and think obviously Roddick could win it but either way it will not be easy for Murray OR Roddick.

as a side note--could someone tell me why Del Potro took Nadal's spot? shouldn't a Lucky Loser or WC replace him? doesn't this essentially make Delpo the #1 seed..?

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:06 AM
I still think Roddick needs someone to take Murray out for him,Murray's just a terrible match-up for him.


If Roddick would attack with the forehand Murray wouldn't be such a bad match-up.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:09 AM
If Roddick would attack with the forehand Murray wouldn't be such a bad match-up.

Yes,but I didn't really see Roddick do that at Queens.If he really goes for it with his FH like he did against Fed in Wimbledon 2004(I recently watched that match again)he definitely has a shot.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:10 AM
Yes,but I didn't really see Roddick do that at Queens.If he really goes for it with his FH like he did against Fed in Wimbledon 2004(I recently watched that match again)he definitely has a shot.


Or if for 2 weeks he develops Edberg like volleys.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:12 AM
Or if for 2 weeks he develops Edberg like volleys.

LOL,you never know.I don't think his volleys looked bad this year actually,they were pretty solid,he just needs to approach better.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:13 AM
LOL,you never know.I don't think his volleys looked bad this year actually,they were pretty solid,he just needs to approach better.



That would be a really scary thought. Roddick serve + Edberg volleys. How can you be broken?

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:14 AM
That would be a really scary thought. Roddick serve + Edberg volleys. How can you be broken?

He'd be a monster for sure.Even on slower modern grass he'd be almost unstoppable.

joeri888
06-20-2009, 11:18 AM
That would be a really scary thought. Roddick serve + Edberg volleys. How can you be broken?

Roger Federer finds a way, trust me;)

MarcRosset1992
06-20-2009, 11:18 AM
Cannot wait.

Whoever wins then goes on the get slaughtered by Fed anyway, but good effort.

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:22 AM
Roger Federer finds a way, trust me;)

Lol,maybe but Fed doesn't really return that agressively against Roddick,he merely blocks it or floats it back but if Roddick had Edberg volleys(maybe best volleys ever)that would be suicide.Fed would have to go for a lot more on return of serve.

joeri888
06-20-2009, 11:24 AM
Lol,maybe but Fed doesn't really return that agressively against Roddick,he merely blocks it or floats it back but if Roddick had Edberg volleys(maybe best volleys ever)that would be suicide.Fed would have to go for a lot more on return of serve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxzFlrFfUrg

enough said ;)

Without joking, I think Federer would have a tough time, but Federer just reads to Roddick serve so amazingly well. And when his passing shots are on.. I'm sure he'll break, not as much as he does now though

zagor
06-20-2009, 11:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxzFlrFfUrg

enough said ;)

Without joking, I think Federer would have a tough time, but Federer just reads to Roddick serve so amazingly well. And when his passing shots are on.. I'm sure he'll break, not as much as he does now though

Yeah that one was great,returning 140 mph serve on the line,just too good.

Maybe you're right but the matches would be at the very least a lot tighter,it would be a lot of 5 setters.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxzFlrFfUrg

enough said ;)

Without joking, I think Federer would have a tough time, but Federer just reads to Roddick serve so amazingly well. And when his passing shots are on.. I'm sure he'll break, not as much as he does now though



Federer doesn't return nearly as well as he did before. Roddick wins alot of cheap points off of Federer now than he ever has. The problem is his baseline game has regressed so much he can't hurt him from the back of the court, and his volleys just aren't good enough.

GraniteHoosier
06-20-2009, 03:09 PM
Federer doesn't return nearly as well as he did before. Roddick wins alot of cheap points off of Federer now than he ever has. The problem is his baseline game has regressed so much he can't hurt him from the back of the court, and his volleys just aren't good enough.

The other problem is that Roddick is a lousy returner (for a top 20 ATP professional that is). Therefore Federer can generally hold serve with ease and just wait until Roddick plays a sloppy service game or take his chances in a TB. I also think that Roddick generally starts to lose a little on his serves by the third set (slightly less pace, decline in first serve %) so if he's not up 2 sets, he's in real trouble.

thalivest
06-20-2009, 03:12 PM
Lol,maybe but Fed doesn't really return that agressively against Roddick,he merely blocks it or floats it back but if Roddick had Edberg volleys(maybe best volleys ever)that would be suicide.Fed would have to go for a lot more on return of serve.

While it is incredibly scary to imagine a player with Edberg's volleys combined with Roddick's serve the scary thing is to realize Sampras has a clearly better serve than Roddick and is only a smidge less of a volleyer then Edberg. So imagine playing him, especialy when you combine the forehand, athletic ability, and mental toughness as well.

Breaker
06-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Tomas Berdych to take Roddick down in round of 16, then Hewitt to beat him - leaving us with a much more entertaining Hewitt/Murray matchup to determine who wins the title.

jimbo333
06-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Shouting for ANDY will be quite funny if this is the Semi:)

zagor
06-20-2009, 03:28 PM
While it is incredibly scary to imagine a player with Edberg's volleys combined with Roddick's serve the scary thing is to realize Sampras has a clearly better serve than Roddick and is only a smidge less of a volleyer then Edberg. So imagine playing him, especialy when you combine the forehand, athletic ability, and mental toughness as well.

Well,there's a reason the man was so dominant on grass(7 Wimbledons with pretty tough grass competition is just insane)although I consider Edberg to have been clearly a class above even Pete in volleying department(that's not a knock of Sampras as Edberg might have had the best volleys ever).Still even Sampras with all his ability wasn't undefeatable on grass as Krajicek and to a lesser extent even Goran showed so I guess no one is undefeatable although Sampras was pretty close to that at Wimbledon.

Sampras certainly did have a better serve than Roddick but sometimes I think Roddick's serve gets a bit underrated here,proably because Fed has always dealt with it comfortably.Just because Fed who always had great reflexes when returning big serves can neutralize Roddick's serve doesn't mean it's still not a great serve.I disagree with people who say that Fed for example has a better serve than Andy,I think that's clearly not the case.

Gugafan
06-20-2009, 03:41 PM
Murray 19 yr old rookie, was able to dominate Roddick at Wimbledon a few years back. Then again this year in Doha, Roddick got schooled in another one-sided match.

Clearly Roddicks serve is going to be a big weapon on the grass, but Murray outplays him in all other departments of the game.

Furthermore, Hewitt is in Roddicks section of the draw, and is certainly capable of mixing it with the best (on grass) if he can get a few matches under his belt.

MarrratSafin
06-20-2009, 04:31 PM
I hope Roddick can finally win a Wimbledon title. This is his best chance in recent years but he'll need to be on top of his game to have a shot. Just RIP that forehand please!

Defcon
06-20-2009, 07:14 PM
I would love for Roddick to go deep. I don't like his style of play but over the last few years he has given 110%, made the most of his options, dedicated himself to becoming fit, and is #1 in the interview room!

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 07:17 PM
Well,there's a reason the man was so dominant on grass(7 Wimbledons with pretty tough grass competition is just insane)although I consider Edberg to have been clearly a class above even Pete in volleying department(that's not a knock of Sampras as Edberg might have had the best volleys ever).Still even Sampras with all his ability wasn't undefeatable on grass as Krajicek and to a lesser extent even Goran showed so I guess no one is undefeatable although Sampras was pretty close to that at Wimbledon.

Sampras certainly did have a better serve than Roddick but sometimes I think Roddick's serve gets a bit underrated here,proably because Fed has always dealt with it comfortably.Just because Fed who always had great reflexes when returning big serves can neutralize Roddick's serve doesn't mean it's still not a great serve.I disagree with people who say that Fed for example has a better serve than Andy,I think that's clearly not the case.



When Roddick actually backs up his serve, Federer finds it very hard to break Roddick. A good example would be the first two sets at the USO 2007, where Federer didn't even get a sniff at breaking Roddick's serve.



I mean, if he would just play like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo


He'd have a pretty good shot at beating anyone at Wimbledon or the USO. Those first two sets Federer barely escaped despite playing very good tennis. He had to come up with some stellar shots.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 07:26 PM
Murray 19 yr old rookie, was able to dominate Roddick at Wimbledon a few years back. Then again this year in Doha, Roddick got schooled in another one-sided match.

Clearly Roddicks serve is going to be a big weapon on the grass, but Murray outplays him in all other departments of the game.

Furthermore, Hewitt is in Roddicks section of the draw, and is certainly capable of mixing it with the best (on grass) if he can get a few matches under his belt.


19 year old Murray beat Roddick who was playing the worst tennis of his life in 2006. Roddick was losing left and right to players today he wouldn't lose to in 10 matches.

zagor
06-20-2009, 10:22 PM
When Roddick actually backs up his serve, Federer finds it very hard to break Roddick. A good example would be the first two sets at the USO 2007, where Federer didn't even get a sniff at breaking Roddick's serve.



I mean, if he would just play like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo


He'd have a pretty good shot at beating anyone at Wimbledon or the USO. Those first two sets Federer barely escaped despite playing very good tennis. He had to come up with some stellar shots.

Roddick was amazing in that match,I think in the first 2 sets he was getting something like 80% first serves in.He was crushing the ball from the baseline,not just the FH but he hit even a couple of great DTL BH as well,he was going toe-to-toe with still prime Fed from the baseline in the first 2 sets.

Fed got outa of that match alive because he played 2 almost perfect tiebreakers(one of the best I've ever seen him play)and then Roddick's level dropped in the last set but things could have gone very differently if a couple of points went Roddick's way in the tiebreakers.

That match is how IMO Roddick should always play,atleast against the top 3.They move better than him,Roddick can't outsmart them,outangle them so overpowering them is always the best bet for him.If Roddick plays like that more often then I think he definitely has a shot at getting one more slam before he retires.

Matches like that from Roddick is why it's hard for me to agree with many posters here when they say Roddick "overachieved".How did he overachieve when 90% of the time since 2003/2004 he doesn't play the the way he's supposed to with his body type? He's capable of hitting one of the biggest FHs ever yet for the last 4 years he just seems content to keep the ball in.You don't have to be a coach to realize that Roddick is built to play power tennis,that's what brought his biggest success,he should stick to that.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 10:33 PM
Roddick was amazing in that match,I think in the first 2 sets he was getting something like 80% first serves in.He was crushing the ball from the baseline,not just the FH but he hit even a couple of great DTL BH as well,he was going toe-to-toe with still prime Fed from the baseline in the first 2 sets.

Fed got outa of that match alive because he played 2 almost perfect tiebreakers(one of the best I've ever seen him play)and then Roddick's level dropped in the last set but things could have gone very differently if a couple of points went Roddick's way in the tiebreakers.

That match is how IMO Roddick should always play,atleast against the top 3.They move better than him,Roddick can't outsmart them,outangle them so overpowering them is always the best bet for him.If Roddick plays like that more often then I think he definitely has a shot at getting one more slam before he retires.

Matches like that from Roddick is why it's hard for me to agree with many posters here when they say Roddick "overachieved".How did he overachieve when 90% of the time since 2003/2004 he doesn't play the the way he's supposed to with his body type? He's capable of hitting one of the biggest FHs ever yet for the last 4 years he just seems content to keep the ball in.You don't have to be a coach to realize that Roddick is built to play power tennis,that's what brought his biggest success,he should stick to that.


Oh yes, it boggles my mind why Roddick refuses to play like the above. One of Federer's classic plays that usually works against Roddick is the heavy crosscourt forehand. Not so much in this match. The scary part was when Federer went crosscourt with a heavy topspin forehand, Roddick rifled it right back at him, and put him on the defense.


I mean, sometimes when I watch Roddick, occasionally he'll absolutely rip a forehand. Then I wonder "uh, why haven't you been doing that the whole time".

DoubleDeuce
06-20-2009, 10:44 PM
Del will be there

devila
06-21-2009, 12:08 AM
You've to remember. Roddick was in terrible shape the last 5 years. He never lost 10 pounds in the 2004 Wimbledon match, but he lied, as usual, about losing 12 pounds (maybe to make the media and family happy).

Coen
06-21-2009, 12:37 AM
When Roddick actually backs up his serve, Federer finds it very hard to break Roddick. A good example would be the first two sets at the USO 2007, where Federer didn't even get a sniff at breaking Roddick's serve.



I mean, if he would just play like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo


He'd have a pretty good shot at beating anyone at Wimbledon or the USO. Those first two sets Federer barely escaped despite playing very good tennis. He had to come up with some stellar shots.

This is a better example I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QSCnxcH30c

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 12:41 AM
This is a better example I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QSCnxcH30c


I've been trying to find that.


ugh, I hate John Roddick and Dean Goldfine. They should never be allowed to coach a pro player again. Totally ruined one of the best 1st strike tennis players since Sampras.

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 01:00 AM
I've been trying to find that.


ugh, I hate John Roddick and Dean Goldfine. They should never be allowed to coach a pro player again. Totally ruined one of the best 1st strike tennis players since Sampras.

He should never have fired Brad Gilbert he fired Gilbert because he didn't win a slam in 04 totally kneejerk.

devila
06-21-2009, 01:10 AM
Oh yes. I can't wait for fan boys to say Gilbert My Love.

For the thousandth time, Gilbert called Roddick nothing but a serve and begged him to serve 160 mph and gain weight. Yeah, classy coach...like that other Federer bandwagon jumper Cahill.

devila
06-21-2009, 01:21 AM
I've been trying to find that.


ugh, I hate John Roddick and Dean Goldfine. They should never be allowed to coach a pro player again. Totally ruined one of the best 1st strike tennis players since Sampras.Roddick's mother, Carillo, Pat McEnroe and Bud Collins begged for Brad Gilbert. I wonder why she rarely showed up to his matches after the year 2004. some :shock: She didn't show any smile when he got the Davis Cup trophy.

John and Goldfine showed up to be yes men and give Roddick companionship. Certainly not for coaching. Roddick fans just jumped up and down with love for them. Unbelievable.

Cfidave
06-21-2009, 02:07 AM
There is a reason Roddick is not in the top 4 in the world. He Won't be around come semi-final day.

tintin
06-21-2009, 03:59 AM
I'd love to see that:twisted:

the only thing Roddick has over Murray is the serve and maybe the forehand

Murray's 2 hander is better

and he uses his 1 handed slice better

he unlike Roddick can drop shot

Murray has great approach shots and he can volley


Murray is great at defense and is superb in defense to offense

Murray knows how to handle Roddick's serves and when he gets his racquet on it he more than 80% of the time will win the point

Murray will use the Federer playbook and block the serve back and pass him

or he'll serve big and drop shot Roddick

Murray will have the crowd on his side and unless he's played a couple of 5 set matches and is tired; if he and Roddick were to meet he'll want to show Roddick why he's world # 3:mrgreen:

navratilovafan
06-21-2009, 07:09 AM
He should never have fired Brad Gilbert he fired Gilbert because he didn't win a slam in 04 totally kneejerk.

I agree totally. It was a total knee jerk reaction and a big mistake. He wasnt going to win atleast 1 slam for 8 straight years and end up with 10-12. That just wasnt ever his potential. So obviously there would be some years he didnt win a slam even with the best coaching and play, and 2004 happened to be one of those, but it doesnt mean he wasnt going to win slams in the future at some point if he stayed with Gilbert, and certainly his standard of play would have been higher.

gj011
06-21-2009, 07:12 AM
This thread is pointless, Roddick will not make it to the SF.

navratilovafan
06-21-2009, 07:13 AM
This thread is pointless, Roddick will not make it to the SF.

Have you seen his draw? Who is going to stop him. Murray will almost no doubt stop him in the semis but I dont see it happening before then.

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 07:14 AM
I agree totally. It was a total knee jerk reaction and a big mistake. He wasnt going to win atleast 1 slam for 8 straight years and end up with 10-12. That just wasnt ever his potential. So obviously there would be some years he didnt win a slam even with the best coaching and play, and 2004 happened to be one of those, but it doesnt mean he wasnt going to win slams in the future at some point if he stayed with Gilbert, and certainly his standard of play would have been higher.

Agreed Roddick was alway a 2-4 slam kind of guy if he had stayed will Gilbert he could be sitting on that that now.

navratilovafan
06-21-2009, 07:15 AM
Agreed Roddick was alway a 2-4 slam kind of guy if he had stayed will Gilbert he could be sitting on that that now.

ITA and he would still have a killer forehand vs that loopy soopy whatever he has now.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 08:30 AM
This thread is pointless, Roddick will not make it to the SF.


Oh yeah, just like how Federer is the 3rd best claycourter right?

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 08:32 AM
Roddick's mother, Carillo, Pat McEnroe and Bud Collins begged for Brad Gilbert. I wonder why she rarely showed up to his matches after the year 2004. some :shock: She didn't show any smile when he got the Davis Cup trophy.

John and Goldfine showed up to be yes men and give Roddick companionship. Certainly not for coaching. Roddick fans just jumped up and down with love for them. Unbelievable.


No; nobody liked them. They sucked as coaches. Especially John Roddick. Both of them completely destroyed Roddick's chances of ever winning another slam. Jimmy Connors did his best to repair whatever damage there was, but unfortunately it wasn't enough.

tacou
06-21-2009, 09:56 AM
There is a reason Roddick is not in the top 4 in the world. He Won't be around come semi-final day.

I bet he will and I bet he's top4 by USO if not after Wimby. Sucka!

Breaker
06-21-2009, 09:57 AM
Agreed Roddick was alway a 2-4 slam kind of guy if he had stayed will Gilbert he could be sitting on that that now.

Where were those 2-4 slams going to come from 2004 on with Federer around? He would still have to beat Federer to win a slam and in his best chance at the '05 Aussie Open where he was absolutely dominating his draw (would have been 50/50 with Safin in the final) he lost to Hewitt.

'05 US Open with Gilbert he probably would not have lost first round but still he would have had to go through Agassi and Federer to win it.

'06 Aussie Open he would have had to beat Federer even if he hadn't lost to Baghdatis (and an on form Nalbandian in the semis). '06 Wimbledon he probably would have been slightly favoured over Nadal but again would have had to play Federer, and even at this time we were seeing that Murray had the edge on him which is why he lost in straights. '06 US Open played a dead tired Hewitt and dead tired/injured Agassi and went on to lose to Federer - even with Gilbert it's hard to see him winning that.

'07 Aussie maybe he wouldn't have been embarassed in that semi yeah..but still would have lost to Federer. '07 Wimbledon would have had to beat Nadal and Federer to win and that isn't happening..'07 US Open played closest to his '03 form for a long time and still lost in straights to Federer.

'08 Aussie Open would have had to beat on fire Tsonga, Nadal, and an in form and rising Djokovic to win - probably another good chance if at 100% of his capabilities, but still unlikely. '08 Wimbledon again, would have to beat Federer and Nadal back to back to win..very unlikely. '08 US Open lost to Djokovic in a tight one and even if he could have pulled it out he would have had to beat Federer and Murray back to back to win..even more unlikely than the other scenarios.

Even in his '03 US Open run he was pretty lucky that Ferrero took out Hewitt and Agassi (two of the best returners of all time) back to back on his way to the final.

Throughout Roddick's career there have always been at least 2 players that were better than him (Hewitt/Federer, Nadal/Federer, Federer/Murray, Agassi/Federer) and would have prevented him - even at 100% with Gilbert, from winning slams.

zagor
06-21-2009, 09:58 AM
I agree totally. It was a total knee jerk reaction and a big mistake. He wasnt going to win atleast 1 slam for 8 straight years and end up with 10-12. That just wasnt ever his potential. So obviously there would be some years he didnt win a slam even with the best coaching and play, and 2004 happened to be one of those, but it doesnt mean he wasnt going to win slams in the future at some point if he stayed with Gilbert, and certainly his standard of play would have been higher.

Good post,I agree completely.Gilbert was the one who was getting the most out of Roddick.

zagor
06-21-2009, 10:01 AM
Where were those 2-4 slams going to come from 2004 on with Federer around? He would still have to beat Federer to win a slam and in his best chance at the '05 Aussie Open where he was absolutely dominating his draw (would have been 50/50 with Safin in the final) he lost to Hewitt.

'05 US Open with Gilbert he probably would not have lost first round but still he would have had to go through Agassi and Federer to win it.

'06 Aussie Open he would have had to beat Federer even if he hadn't lost to Baghdatis (and an on form Nalbandian in the semis). '06 Wimbledon he probably would have been slightly favoured over Nadal but again would have had to play Federer, and even at this time we were seeing that Murray had the edge on him which is why he lost in straights. '06 US Open played a dead tired Hewitt and dead tired/injured Agassi and went on to lose to Federer - even with Gilbert it's hard to see him winning that.

'07 Aussie maybe he wouldn't have been embarassed in that semi yeah..but still would have lost to Federer. '07 Wimbledon would have had to beat Nadal and Federer to win and that isn't happening..'07 US Open played closest to his '03 form for a long time and still lost in straights to Federer.

'08 Aussie Open would have had to beat on fire Tsonga, Nadal, and an in form and rising Djokovic to win - probably another good chance if at 100% of his capabilities, but still unlikely. '08 Wimbledon again, would have to beat Federer and Nadal back to back to win..very unlikely. '08 US Open lost to Djokovic in a tight one and even if he could have pulled it out he would have had to beat Federer and Murray back to back to win..even more unlikely than the other scenarios.

Even in his '03 US Open run he was pretty lucky that Ferrero took out Hewitt and Agassi (two of the best returners of all time) back to back on his way to the final.

Throughout Roddick's career there have always been at least 2 players that were better than him (Hewitt/Federer, Nadal/Federer, Federer/Murray, Agassi/Federer) and would have prevented him - even at 100% with Gilbert, from winning slams.

He didn't play Agassi,maybe you meant Youzhny(Mischa took out Nadal in quarters that year)?

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 10:04 AM
Where were those 2-4 slams going to come from 2004 on with Federer around? He would still have to beat Federer to win a slam and in his best chance at the '05 Aussie Open where he was absolutely dominating his draw (would have been 50/50 with Safin in the final) he lost to Hewitt.

'05 US Open with Gilbert he probably would not have lost first round but still he would have had to go through Agassi and Federer to win it.

'06 Aussie Open he would have had to beat Federer even if he hadn't lost to Baghdatis (and an on form Nalbandian in the semis). '06 Wimbledon he probably would have been slightly favoured over Nadal but again would have had to play Federer, and even at this time we were seeing that Murray had the edge on him which is why he lost in straights. '06 US Open played a dead tired Hewitt and dead tired/injured Agassi and went on to lose to Federer - even with Gilbert it's hard to see him winning that.

'07 Aussie maybe he wouldn't have been embarassed in that semi yeah..but still would have lost to Federer. '07 Wimbledon would have had to beat Nadal and Federer to win and that isn't happening..'07 US Open played closest to his '03 form for a long time and still lost in straights to Federer.

'08 Aussie Open would have had to beat on fire Tsonga, Nadal, and an in form and rising Djokovic to win - probably another good chance if at 100% of his capabilities, but still unlikely. '08 Wimbledon again, would have to beat Federer and Nadal back to back to win..very unlikely. '08 US Open lost to Djokovic in a tight one and even if he could have pulled it out he would have had to beat Federer and Murray back to back to win..even more unlikely than the other scenarios.

Even in his '03 US Open run he was pretty lucky that Ferrero took out Hewitt and Agassi (two of the best returners of all time) back to back on his way to the final.

Throughout Roddick's career there have always been at least 2 players that were better than him (Hewitt/Federer, Nadal/Federer, Federer/Murray, Agassi/Federer) and would have prevented him - even at 100% with Gilbert, from winning slams.


In the 06 USO final he took a set off Federer despite having no weapons apart from his serve and has 0-40 to go a break up in the 3rd his 03-04 game might have won him that match.

08 Aussie Open he got knocked out early by Philipp Kohlschreiber but with his 03-04 game he would have won that match,Federer and Nadal were both vunerable that tournament he would have had a shot at that.

Breaker
06-21-2009, 10:05 AM
He didn't play Agassi,maybe you meant Youzhny(Mischa took out Nadal in quarters that year)?

You're right Becker took Agassi out which made it even easier for Roddick. Still, beating Federer at the US Open probably was neven going to happen no matter what level Roddick brought to the match.

zagor
06-21-2009, 10:08 AM
You're right Becker took Agassi out which made it even easier for Roddick. Still, beating Federer at the US Open probably was neven going to happen no matter what level Roddick brought to the match.

Possibly but look at the point Cesc made above.Roddick was doing pretty well against Fed in USO 2006 final(had a chance to go up 2-1 in sets) even though he was having a bad year for his standards(found his form in Cinncinati though)so I think he would have pushed that match to 5 if he stayed with Gilbert.

flying24
06-21-2009, 10:13 AM
Where were those 2-4 slams going to come from 2004 on with Federer around? He would still have to beat Federer to win a slam and in his best chance at the '05 Aussie Open where he was absolutely dominating his draw (would have been 50/50 with Safin in the final) he lost to Hewitt.

'05 US Open with Gilbert he probably would not have lost first round but still he would have had to go through Agassi and Federer to win it.

'06 Aussie Open he would have had to beat Federer even if he hadn't lost to Baghdatis (and an on form Nalbandian in the semis). '06 Wimbledon he probably would have been slightly favoured over Nadal but again would have had to play Federer, and even at this time we were seeing that Murray had the edge on him which is why he lost in straights. '06 US Open played a dead tired Hewitt and dead tired/injured Agassi and went on to lose to Federer - even with Gilbert it's hard to see him winning that.

'07 Aussie maybe he wouldn't have been embarassed in that semi yeah..but still would have lost to Federer. '07 Wimbledon would have had to beat Nadal and Federer to win and that isn't happening..'07 US Open played closest to his '03 form for a long time and still lost in straights to Federer.

'08 Aussie Open would have had to beat on fire Tsonga, Nadal, and an in form and rising Djokovic to win - probably another good chance if at 100% of his capabilities, but still unlikely. '08 Wimbledon again, would have to beat Federer and Nadal back to back to win..very unlikely. '08 US Open lost to Djokovic in a tight one and even if he could have pulled it out he would have had to beat Federer and Murray back to back to win..even more unlikely than the other scenarios.

Even in his '03 US Open run he was pretty lucky that Ferrero took out Hewitt and Agassi (two of the best returners of all time) back to back on his way to the final.

Throughout Roddick's career there have always been at least 2 players that were better than him (Hewitt/Federer, Nadal/Federer, Federer/Murray, Agassi/Federer) and would have prevented him - even at 100% with Gilbert, from winning slams.

Federer struggled mightily for his standards at the 2006 Australian Open and was potentialy beatable for an on fire Roddick had he stayed with Gilbert. He lost sets in each of his last 4 mathes despite an extremely easy all around draw (other than maybe Davydenko quarterfinal). The 2005 Australian Open he may have had a better shot of beating Hewitt and Safin back to back to win if he were still with Gilbert. The 2008 Australian Open where an ill Federer and sluggish Nadal would both crushed in the semis might have been a good shot, especialy as he is doing well vs Djokovic even today. The U.S Open there isnt one obvious year he had a good shot but maybe he could have won 1 year out of 2005-2008 if he were still with Gibert. Wimbledon probably would have been the hardest for him to ever win of the 3 ironically, then again maybe similar to the U.S Open, 1 year perhaps from 2005-2008 although there isnt one obvious year. He would not have won all of even these examples, but he might have won some of them, and it is certainly possible had he stayed with Gilbert he could have the the 2-4 slams Cesc spoke of had he stayed with Gilbert.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Possibly but look at the point Cesc made above.Roddick was doing pretty well against Fed in USO 2006 final(had a chance to go up 2-1 in sets) even though he was having a bad year for his standards(found his form in Cinncinati though)so I think he would have pushed that match to 5 if he stayed with Gilbert.

He never had a chance to go up 2-1 in sets. A few break points early in the 3rd set is not being on the verge of going up 2-1 in sets when Federer can break Roddick's serve virtually anytime he wants anyway, sorry. Federer was never really worried of losing to Roddick even when the match was close for awhile, if he found himself in bit more trouble he just would have raised his game like he did vs an old Agassi the year before U.S Open final. Only Nadal, Murray, and to a lesser extent Djokovic can make him truly worried in a late round major match. Federer had over twice the winners as Roddick and dominated the match, Roddick was lucky to even be as close in the score as he was and I hate Federer with a passion.

egn
06-21-2009, 10:21 AM
In the 06 USO final he took a set off Federer despite having no weapons apart from his serve and has 0-40 to go a break up in the 3rd his 03-04 game might have won him that match.

08 Aussie Open he got knocked out early by Philipp Kohlschreiber but with his 03-04 game he would have won that match,Federer and Nadal were both vunerable that tournament he would have had a shot at that.

I can think of a few slams as well where Roddick with more than just his serve could have done damage.

Biggest one in my mind is 2006 Austrailan Open he played an awful match against Bags because he had no weapons outside of his serve and Fed was playing quite bad that whole tournament, Haas, Davy, Kiefer and Bags all took sets off him if Roddick was playing his 2004 or 2003 form than he could have easily gotten to the finals and I think if he had been on fire Fed would have had trouble.

I also agree 2006 USO and if he had more of a game even if he lost the third he would have not died in the fourth so fast when Fed started killing his serve as he would have been able to compete with Fed.

Forget it 2008 Aussie I think he could have well taken out Nadal as not to be mean 2008 AO Nadal was nothing like 2009 AO Nadal as Nadal was actually playing quite bad that tournament but getting quite the easy opponents and Fed as well played quite bad and Djoker knocked him out there and it would have been interesting to see Roddick vs. Djoker as we have seen Roddick can get the best of Djoker and with a complete game I think he could have tipped the scales in his favor.

Now of course I am not saying he could won all three of those but those are three slams where Roddick with a complete game or at least his 2003-2004 form with a little added work could have done damage.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:24 AM
Roddick is one of the most overrated players in tennis period. Probably the second most overrated player today after Federer, but atleast Federer as overrated as he is is still one of the 5 greatest players of allt ime, while Roddick is nothing more than a glorified pretty good player who wouldnt even be a top 30 player without his serve.

zagor
06-21-2009, 10:26 AM
He never had a chance to go up 2-1 in sets. A few break points early in the 3rd set is not being on the verge of going up 2-1 in sets when Federer can break Roddick's serve virtually anytime he wants anyway, sorry. Federer was never really worried of losing to Roddick even when the match was close for awhile, if he found himself in bit more trouble he just would have raised his game like he did vs an old Agassi the year before U.S Open final. Only Nadal, Murray, and to a lesser extent Djokovic can make him truly worried in a late round major match. Federer had over twice the winners as Roddick and dominated the match, Roddick was lucky to even be as close in the score as he was and I hate Federer with a passion.

Well this is all speculation of course(what would happen if Roddick stayed with Gilbert)and it's most likely you're right.That 3d set was still close though and could have gone Roddick's way although I think Fed would have found a way to win in the end,even if the match got pushed to five.Federer almost always outwinners every opponent by a good margin but I agree that he could have played BPs better in that match(was 6 out of 16).

egn
06-21-2009, 10:27 AM
Roddick is one of the most overrated players in tennis period. Probably the second most overrated player today after Federer, but atleast Federer as overrated as he is is still one of the 5 greatest players of allt ime, while Roddick is nothing more than a glorified pretty good player who wouldnt even be a top 30 player without his serve.

Well accept the fact that he has it and is a top 30 player because overrated or not he still has that serve and that for sure is not overrated.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:28 AM
Well this is all speculation of course(what would happen if Roddick stayed with Gilbert)and it's most likely you're right.That 3d set was still close though and could have gone Roddick's way although I think Fed would have found a way to win in the end,even if the match got pushed to five.Federer almost always outwinners every opponent by a good margin but I agree that he could have played BPs better in that match(was 6 out of 16).

Federer had a ton of break points in the next game on Roddick's serve. He missed out on some by stupid plays (eg- not putting 2nd serves back in court). Had Roddick broken at 1-1 Federer would have just broken back and won the 3rd set anyway. Anyway Roddick didnt lose any of the break points in that 3rd game of the 3rd set except maybe the 4th when he missed a forehand off a sitting slice. He was overpowered and forced into errors by Federer on the first 3, and on the 4th even if he made his shot Federer was standing right there for it so it still doesnt win the point I bet. Federer could have more easily broken in the 4th game than Roddick in the 3rd.

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Roddick is one of the most overrated players in tennis period. Probably the second most overrated player today after Federer, but atleast Federer as overrated as he is is still one of the 5 greatest players of allt ime, while Roddick is nothing more than a glorified pretty good player who wouldnt even be a top 30 player without his serve.

He's overatted/underrated depending on how you look at it.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:32 AM
He's overatted/underrated depending on how you look at it.

Feel free to explain in more detail.

zagor
06-21-2009, 10:34 AM
Federer had a ton of break points in the next game on Roddick's serve. He missed out on some by stupid plays (eg- not putting 2nd serves back in court). Had Roddick broken at 1-1 Federer would have just broken back and won the 3rd set anyway. Anyway Roddick didnt lose any of the break points in that 3rd game of the 3rd set except maybe the 4th when he missed a forehand off a sitting slice. He was overpowered and forced into errors by Federer on the first 3, and on the 4th even if he made his shot Federer was standing right there for it so it still doesnt win the point I bet. Federer could have more easily broken in the 4th game than Roddick in the 3rd.

True,Fed played those well on those BPs Roddick had at the beginning of the 3d set.It is also true that if Roddick broke Fed,there's a very good chance Fed would have broken him back before the end of the set but I still consider that set to have been a close affair.As I said,I think Fed would have won that match anyway in the end even if Roddick was with Gilbert on his side but Roddick might have made the match closer.

clayman2000
06-21-2009, 10:34 AM
Roddick is one of the most overrated players in tennis period. Probably the second most overrated player today after Federer, but atleast Federer as overrated as he is is still one of the 5 greatest players of allt ime, while Roddick is nothing more than a glorified pretty good player who wouldnt even be a top 30 player without his serve.

You know whats funny. Roddicks around 25th in return stats, and remember hes loosing to top 10 players.... only two losses this year have not been to players ranked in the top 3....

Also Roddick isnt the most agressive returner. If he gets a break he slacks of on the return for the rest of the set..... anyone who watches Roddick knows im right

As for being nothing without a serve.... where would McEnroe be without his serve.... where would Laver be without his volleys. Heck give Federer Roddick's forhand and i doubt hes even a 14 time slam winner... poor argument... Roddick is easily one of the top 5-6 players in the game today, and probably the 3rd best player of this decade --- Hewitt was no 1 in the weakest period in the game, Safin had 3 good year

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 10:36 AM
Feel free to explain in more detail.

Underrated- The people who say he has no talent, lucky to win a slam and wouldn't be in top 100 without his serve etc, this is underrated him because you don't get to no.1 in the world with no talent

Overrated- The people at the start of his career who were saying he was going to take over from Sampras and dominate tennis and win slam after slam and are now saying he is a massive underachiever overrate him.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 10:37 AM
Roddick could have easily at least snuck 1 slam in the past 3-4 years if he just stuck with Gilbert. Heck, he nearly stole a set off Federer this year at the AO, despite playing crap tennis.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:40 AM
Roddick is easily one of the top 5-6 players in the game today, and probably the 3rd best player of this decade --- Hewitt was no 1 in the weakest period in the game, Safin had 3 good year

The bolded part is proof of how Roddick is overrated. Roddick in no way deserves to rank over Hewitt or Safin's careers. 2 slams > 1 slam first of all. Safin has more Masters titles and much bigger wins to win his slams. Hewitt has won the year end Masters twice, in addition to his Wimbledon and U.S Open titles, and two year end #1s. Roddick was even dominated by a very old Agassi, whom teenaged pre primed Hewitt and Safin were able to beat as early as 1998 when Agassi was only 27 or 28.

Hewitt was #1 in a weak period and so was Roddick so no difference, other than Hewitt ended two years #1 and spent much more time there than Roddick's cup of coffee stint. Safin was #1 and almost ended the year #1 in 2000 which was a much better year for mens tennis than 2002 or 2003 were. I laugh at the idea Roddick's career or as a player should rate over Hewitt or Safin.

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:42 AM
Underrated- The people who say he has no talent, lucky to win a slam and wouldn't be in top 100 without his serve etc, this is underrated him because you don't get to no.1 in the world with no talent

Overrated- The people at the start of his career who were saying he was going to take over from Sampras and dominate tennis and win slam after slam and are now saying he is a massive underachiever overrate him.

Fair enough. You are probably right on both. I would never say he has no talent. He has some ability and game, and he maxes it out with hard work and good fighting spirit which is why I have a harder time viewing him as an underachiever than guys that dont have those traits. Nor would I say he has no game outside his serve. Still there is no doubt his best asset is the serve, even when he had his best forehand his serve was still his best asset of all. That is a good thing though as the serve is the most important shot in mens tennis. Not the only important shot, but if you had to pick one shot that is the most important of all it would be the serve.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 10:44 AM
The bolded part is proof of how Roddick is overrated. Roddick in no way deserves to rank over Hewitt or Safin's careers. 2 slams > 1 slam first of all. Safin has more Masters titles and much bigger wins to win his slams. Hewitt has won the year end Masters twice, in addition to his Wimbledon and U.S Open titles, and two year end #1s. Roddick was even dominated by a very old Agassi, whom teenaged pre primed Hewitt and Safin were able to beat as early as 1998 when Agassi was only 27 or 28.

Hewitt was #1 in a weak period and so was Roddick so no difference, other than Hewitt ended two years #1 and spent much more time there than Roddick's cup of coffee stint. Safin was #1 and almost ended the year #1 in 2000 which was a much better year for mens tennis than 2002 or 2003 were. I laugh at the idea Roddick's career or as a player should rate over Hewitt or Safin.




Roddick didn't hit his stride until 2003, and all the matches 2003 and on were all 3 set matches that were very competitive.





Roddick's career isn't over yet anyways, and he could still sneak a slam if the top 4 all of a sudden to decide to play a bad day of tennis. Heck, I'd say at this point, Roddick's got a better shot at winning another slam than Djokovic (with Djokovic's recent form).

grafselesfan
06-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Roddick's career isn't over yet anyways, and he could still sneak a slam if the top 4 all of a sudden to decide to play a bad day of tennis. Heck, I'd say at this point, Roddick's got a better shot at winning another slam than Djokovic (with Djokovic's recent form).

Although I dont think it will happen yes I do agree it is possible for Roddick to win another slam at some point whereas for Hewitt and Safin it is practically impossible at this point. I dont agree on Djokovic if you are talking the rest of Djokovic's career. If you mean right now you could well be right as Djokovic seems to be low on confidence again after his French Open letdown and Roddick could easily be playing the better of the two at the moment. However Djokovic is so young and will have many more years of chances if you meant his whole career.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 10:56 AM
Although I dont think it will happen yes I do agree it is possible for Roddick to win another slam at some point whereas for Hewitt and Safin it is practically impossible at this point. I dont agree on Djokovic if you are talking the rest of Djokovic's career. If you mean right now you could well be right as Djokovic seems to be low on confidence again after his French Open letdown and Roddick could easily be playing the better of the two at the moment. However Djokovic is so young and will have many more years of chances if you meant his whole career.



I don't know, Djokovic is on a record pace for retirements at slams. The way he mentally gives up when the tough gets going does not bode well for his future.



It took a tremendously easy draw, Federer getting mono, and Tsonga choking all together for Djokovic to win a slam. The stars were aligned that year for Djokovic. Now that he has to play more competitive opponents early on however, he's starting to get beat earlier and earlier in slams.

tudwell
06-21-2009, 10:56 AM
I'm not sure if the OP was joking, but I'm really looking forward to the Roddick-Gulbis semi.

safin is a ledgend
06-21-2009, 01:00 PM
1. Roddick himself has said that he isn't in that illustrious group of Grand Slam potentials so he has virtually no pressure on him and he's fitter than he's been in a long time.

2. Murray has come up short on several occasions in the grand slam department over the last 12 months and has MASSIVE pressure to win on his home courts or win a slam at all.

Maybe it will all FINALLY come together for Roddick and he'll have a shot at another slam trophy to match the dusty one from 2003

How can you say that murray has come up short over the past 12 months. Apart from the 2008 Australian Open where he lost to the eventual runner-up, and the french open in the same year he has had a great set of results making him number 3 in the world. Don't get me wrong i am also a fan of roddick but some people make stupid statements without thinking about players actual records. Murray has had his best twelve months on tour and to say that he has come up short especially in the grand-slams is just ridiculous.

aceroberts13
06-21-2009, 01:21 PM
A man named Andy will take home the Wimbledon trophy, I'll leave it at that.

Miami83095
06-21-2009, 05:24 PM
Murray will beat Roddick in the semi's. The score will be 6-3 6-7 6-4 6-2

ElSuegro
06-21-2009, 05:28 PM
It would definitely be popcorn match, and I hope it happens. The battle of the Andys. I would like to see Roddick's new coach and training pay off with a trip to the final, but it still won't be enough to take Federer. But a little more ammo to get him in the Hall of Fame.

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 06:06 PM
It would definitely be popcorn match, and I hope it happens. The battle of the Andys. I would like to see Roddick's new coach and training pay off with a trip to the final, but it still won't be enough to take Federer. But a little more ammo to get him in the Hall of Fame.



If Chang's in there Roddick certainly will make it. He won a slam, won DC, and has been a perennial top 10 player for most of this decade.