PDA

View Full Version : Nadal is the favorite to win this year's US Open...


GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:17 AM
...eventhough Fed won the last two slams and is ranked No.1, for two reasons, 13-7 and 5-2. Enough said.

After Nadal, I'd say Murray is the second favorite because, 6-2.

And then Simon, coz 2-0.

These are my top 3 picks to win this year's US Open.

PimpMyGame
08-05-2009, 05:18 AM
Is Federer injured?

big bang
08-05-2009, 05:19 AM
Rafa takes it and then we have 2 players who won all 4 in the same year.. WOW wouldŽnt that be great:)

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 05:20 AM
no

ggggggggggggggggg

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 05:20 AM
...eventhough Fed won the last two slams and is ranked No.1, for two reasons, 13-7 and 5-2. Enough said.

After Nadal, I'd say Murray is the second favorite because, 6-2.

And then Simon, coz 2-0.

These are my top 3 picks to win this year's US Open.
Can you motivate that??:evil:
Or are you just trying to be a big jerk??

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:22 AM
Can you motivate that??:evil:
Or are you just trying to be a big jerk??

Jerky is 13-7 over Smooth.:twisted: ;)

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:24 AM
Is Federer injured?

Nadal must be injured if he fails to win USO. Like I said Nadal is the favorite.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 05:25 AM
Jerky is 13-7 over Smooth.:twisted: ;)
Yeah but i prefer 15/6, that was such a nice day right?!:twisted:

PimpMyGame
08-05-2009, 05:28 AM
Nadal must be injured if he fails to win USO. Like I said Nadal is the favorite.

So the bookies are making Nadal favourite? What are the current odds? Would like to check but gambling sites are prohibited at work.

1hbhBUX
08-05-2009, 05:31 AM
I don't think he's saying that Nadal is THE favorite. He's saying that he's HIS favorite.

What about Roddick this time around?

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:32 AM
So the bookies are making Nadal favourite? What are the current odds? Would like to check but gambling sites are prohibited at work.

Screw the bookies or odds. Nadal is the favorite no matter what. 13-7 and 5-2 are the only numbers that matter.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 05:34 AM
Screw the bookies or odds. Nadal is the favorite no matter what. 13-7 and 5-2 are the only numbers that matter.
Fifteen-six
Femton-sex
Funftzen-sechs

PimpMyGame
08-05-2009, 05:34 AM
The only time you'll ever win at the bookies is when you know more than they do. And you seem to know more than the bookies, hell you seem to know more than most of the members here about who is the favourite. Slap a couple of grand on Nadal and buy us a beer when the money comes rolling in.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:36 AM
Yeah but i prefer 15/6, that was such a nice day right?!:twisted:

You bet. But also a painful day below the thighs. ;)

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:42 AM
I don't think he's saying that Nadal is THE favorite. He's saying that he's HIS favorite.

What about Roddick this time around?

Roddick has the odds against him, exactly 2-19 as it stands.

deltox
08-05-2009, 05:43 AM
everyones odds cant be the h2h with federer, he cant play everyone.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:46 AM
everyones odds cant be the h2h with federer, he cant play everyone.

Good point. But its like with the GOAT's issues, H2H is all that matters in tennis.

PimpMyGame
08-05-2009, 05:49 AM
Just checked on my phone:

Fed 6/4
Murray 3/1
Nadal 9/2
Djoker 10/1
Roddick 12/1

Only thing I would disagree with (in terms of odds ranking) is that Djokovic has more chance than Roddick. I'd like to see the draw then maybe place a bet that Roddick will go deeper into the draw. I may cover it by betting that Murray will go deeper than Nadal, if they are in the same half.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 05:50 AM
Good point. But its like with the GOAT's issues, H2H is all that matters in tennis.
Really?? Something tells me that you are just saying that because Nadal happens to have an h2h- advantage vs Federer, if Fed was 13-7 h2h and Nadal had 15-6 GS advantage i bet my life you would say "-oh yeah you know...uhm slams are all that matters, oh yeah, defientely"

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 05:52 AM
Good point. But its like with the GOAT's issues, H2H is all that matters in tennis.
Interesting, because Nadal then is O W N E D by both James Blake AND MIchail Youzhny!:twisted:

deltox
08-05-2009, 05:54 AM
Just checked on my phone:

Fed 6/4
Murray 3/1
Nadal 9/2
Djoker 10/1
Roddick 12/1

Only thing I would disagree with (in terms of odds ranking) is that Djokovic has more chance than Roddick. I'd like to see the draw then maybe place a bet that Roddick will go deeper into the draw. I may cover it by betting that Murray will go deeper than Nadal, if they are in the same half.

30358 FEDERER Roger 2.00 $
30405 MURRAY Andy 3.50 $
30406 NADAL Rafael 5.50 $
30418 RODDICK Andy 11.00 $
30354 DEL POTRO Juan Martin 13.00 $
30357 DJOKOVIC Novak 13.00 $
30435 TSONGA Jo-Wilfred 41.00 $
30428 SODERLING Robin 51.00


my sight has roddick above djokovic and jmdp tied with him

mandy01
08-05-2009, 05:57 AM
Nadal's chances are def.good.Nadal loves to be the underdog and he's been playing down his chances so far.I'm sure he'll be as comfortable as ever going into the USO.
Besides,he always comes back strong after a break so I wouldnt be surprised

bulldawg
08-05-2009, 05:57 AM
Nadal might be the OP's favorite player to win the Open, but I say he goes out in the semi's. :twisted:

PimpMyGame
08-05-2009, 05:57 AM
30358 FEDERER Roger 2.00 $
30405 MURRAY Andy 3.50 $
30406 NADAL Rafael 5.50 $
30418 RODDICK Andy 11.00 $
30354 DEL POTRO Juan Martin 13.00 $
30357 DJOKOVIC Novak 13.00 $
30435 TSONGA Jo-Wilfred 41.00 $
30428 SODERLING Robin 51.00


my sight has roddick above djokovic and jmdp tied with him

Interesting, there may be some opportunity given the UK has IMO slightly messed-up odds.

rocket
08-05-2009, 05:57 AM
...eventhough Fed won the last two slams and is ranked No.1, for two reasons, 13-7 and 5-2. Enough said.

After Nadal, I'd say Murray is the second favorite because, 6-2.

And then Simon, coz 2-0.

These are my top 3 picks to win this year's US Open.

Yes, if Nadal faces Fed in the USO final, there's a 60/40 chance he'll win it, even when limping around.

As to Murray & Simon, they might beat Fed in the quarters or semis, but in a slam final, Fed kicks everyone's *** but Nadal's.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 05:59 AM
Interesting, because Nadal then is O W N E D by both James Blake AND MIchail Youzhny!:twisted:

Nadal was tired/exhausted (probably had blisters too) during those ownages so you can't really blame him. But that doesn't make him not the favorite as long as he's 100%.

jevonclyde
08-05-2009, 06:00 AM
...eventhough Fed won the last two slams and is ranked No.1, for two reasons, 13-7 and 5-2. Enough said.

After Nadal, I'd say Murray is the second favorite because, 6-2.

And then Simon, coz 2-0.

These are my top 3 picks to win this year's US Open.

I don't share your point of view nor your explanation. If you say Nadal is now injury-free, fresher and more motivated to let himself and everyone else know that this US Open is his US Open, then throw in his results against the field, I then might be enclined to contemplate the idea of Nadal winning the US Open.
But the US Open can be a racous, rowdy place (e.g. SAMurais, A-RODRARA's, FEDuchinis, BlakeBOX) and can get it into the top players heads (e.g. Nole, Hewitt). Bottom line: let's see if Rafa can built some momentum in Canada onwards.

rocket
08-05-2009, 06:00 AM
Interesting, because Nadal then is O W N E D by both James Blake AND MIchail Youzhny!:twisted:

Not in a slam, not anymore.

rocket
08-05-2009, 06:02 AM
I don't share your point of view nor your explanation. If you say Nadal is now injury-free, fresher and more motivated to let himself and everyone else know that this US Open is his US Open, then throw in his results against the field, I then might be enclined to contemplate the idea of Nadal winning the US Open.

All Nadal has to do is battle his way through to the final, and then he can watch Fed beat himself.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 06:04 AM
Not in a slam, not anymore.
Both Blake and Youzhny toyed with Nadal at the Us Open.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 06:05 AM
Nadal might be the OP's favorite player to win the Open, but I say he goes out in the semi's. :twisted:

If he goes out in the semis then he must be not 100%, probably due to the same knee pain he had since miami eventhough he says he has recovered, which he only said it because he is such a fighter!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 06:05 AM
Nadal was tired/exhausted (probably had blisters too) during those ownages so you can't really blame him. But that doesn't make him not the favorite as long as he's 100%.
No wonder he gets blisters from all that butt-picking

zagor
08-05-2009, 06:16 AM
Nadal's chances are def.good.Nadal loves to be the underdog and he's been playing down his chances so far.I'm sure he'll be as comfortable as ever going into the USO.
Besides,he always comes back strong after a break so I wouldnt be surprised

I agree,Nadal always severely plays down his chances,it's quite obvious by now that it's a tactic by him an uncle Toni.Even at the begining of AO this year I remember Toni saying Nadal hasn't recovered fully yet he went on to win AO playing 2 marathon matches in a row in SF and F which suggest that Nadal was perfectly fine and fully recovered.

I wouldn't say he's the first favourite for USO but one of the main favourites for sure.

raiden031
08-05-2009, 06:19 AM
My prediction is that Nadal loses in an early round because of sitting out for so long. He will be back in top form later in the year though, but USO is too early.

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 06:20 AM
I agree,Nadal always severely plays down his chances,it's quite obvious by now that it's a tactic by him an uncle Toni.Even at the begining of AO this year I remember Toni saying Nadal hasn't recovered fully yet he went on to win AO playing 2 marathon matches in a row in SF and F which suggest that Nadal was perfectly fine and fully recovered.

I wouldn't say he's the first favourite for USO but one of the main favourites for sure.

it's actually pretty clever, and sneaky too. I would say personally, federer, murray and roddick would go in top 3 favourites. But you can't predict anything, nadal might come out all gunz balzin'

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 06:21 AM
If he goes out in the semis then he must be not 100%, probably due to the same knee pain he had since miami eventhough he says he has recovered, which he only said it because he is such a fighter!
According to some very trustworthy ppl on these board with very reliable sources Nadal is serving a suspension, apparently he practiced like crazy before Wimbledon...

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 06:23 AM
According to some very trustworthy ppl on these board with very reliable sources Nadal is serving a suspension, apparently he practiced like crazy before Wimbledon...

why might he be serving a suspension ???

mandy01
08-05-2009, 06:23 AM
GasquetGOAT is too funny! :lol:

mandy01
08-05-2009, 06:24 AM
why might he be serving a suspension ??? Its a dumb theory with no credibility..pay no heed :wink:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 06:24 AM
why might he be serving a suspension ???
Due to forbidden substances in his body

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 06:25 AM
Nadal was tired/exhausted (probably had blisters too) during those ownages so you can't really blame him. But that doesn't make him not the favorite as long as he's 100%.

Nadal is not the favorite.

If you think he is, you don't understand what the term means.

zagor
08-05-2009, 06:26 AM
it's actually pretty clever, and sneaky too. I would say personally, federer, murray and roddick would go in top 3 favourites. But you can't predict anything, nadal might come out all gunz balzin'

Sure it is and I don't like it myself(I find it a bit annoying)but obviously it works for Nadal team so good for them.

I don't know if I would put Roddick ahead of Nadal,historically Roddick has better results at USO but Nadal has better record against 2 other favourites Fed and Murray and had a stronger performance than Roddick in last USO they played.

Overall I'd say Fed,Murray,Nadal and Roddick all have good chances at the title.Djokovic has a shot as well but only if he finds his good form and mentally stays tough.It will be also interesting to see how Delpo fares at USO given that he's maturing as a player and his best surface is HC.

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 06:26 AM
Due to forbidden substances in his body

ah, steroids i guess.

then why didn't he get banned for a very long time??

why did ITF make the news public like they did to everyone else who broke laws???

zagor
08-05-2009, 06:27 AM
Nadal is not the favorite.

If you think he is, you don't understand what the term means.

The OP's being sarcastic.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 06:28 AM
ah, steroids i guess.

then why didn't he get banned for a very long time??

why did ITF make the news public like they did to everyone else who broke laws???
I am not saying it is steroids.
But forbidden substances in his body...(maybe taken during the spring in order to ba able to defend FO/Wimby/Montreal...
Because he is tennis 2nd biggest star. And sponsored by Nike.

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 06:34 AM
Sure it is and I don't like it myself(I find it a bit annoying)but obviously it works for Nadal team so good for them.

I don't know if I would put Roddick ahead of Nadal,historically Roddick has better results at USO but Nadal has better record against 2 other favourites Fed and Murray and had a stronger performance than Roddick in last USO they played.

Overall I'd say Fed,Murray,Nadal and Roddick all have good chances at the title.Djokovic has a shot as well but only if he finds his good form and mentally stays tough.It will be also interesting to see how Delpo fares at USO given that he's maturing as a player and his best surface is HC.

I don't think many people are concerned about playing djokovic right now, he's not on his best form, having said that, there's plenty of time for him to gain his confidence back before the open anyway.There's pressure on murray to do well. He needs to win a slam to prove himself on the biggest stage and he needs to defend alot of ranking points too. Like you said, if nadal is truly healthy, then he's ahead of everyone except for federer. Hopefully, roddick can keep this level of play up, if so, then he might just win, but you can't really predict anything without seeing them play on the hard courts yet.

Fedfan1234
08-05-2009, 07:17 AM
Good point. But its like with the GOAT's issues, H2H is all that matters in tennis.
Maybe to you, but the rest of the world doesn't really care.
Winning slams is all that matters in tennis! Everybody talks about the Wimbledon winner, not about the great player that has nice head to heads against everybody but doesn't win a slam. Ask any tennis player what would you want to achieve as a tennis player. I bet you that they would say win Wimbledon or another slam. Not something like have a possitive head to head against Federer or Nadal. That would really be pathetic.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-05-2009, 07:28 AM
Thread Fail

DownTheLine
08-05-2009, 07:31 AM
Federer has won 5 straight USOs, he's won two straight slams and did I mention 5 straight USOs?

Plus, nadal is just coming back from an injury.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 07:36 AM
GasquetGOAT is too funny! :lol:

Thanks mandy! ;):)

NamRanger
08-05-2009, 07:38 AM
Just checked on my phone:

Fed 6/4
Murray 3/1
Nadal 9/2
Djoker 10/1
Roddick 12/1

Only thing I would disagree with (in terms of odds ranking) is that Djokovic has more chance than Roddick. I'd like to see the draw then maybe place a bet that Roddick will go deeper into the draw. I may cover it by betting that Murray will go deeper than Nadal, if they are in the same half.



I don't see how Roddick's odds are lower than Nadal's when Nadal is coming off an injury and little play, nor do I see how they are lower than Djokovic's who has been under performing at every slam.

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 07:42 AM
I dunno how Roddick's below Djokovic, but I do see how he's below Nadal. Nadal is world #2 and is Federer's most dangerous opponent.

Sentinel
08-05-2009, 07:47 AM
A casual skip through this thread suggests that GasketGoat is being sarcastic.

btw, The thread title is clearly "the favorite" not my favorite.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 07:47 AM
Maybe to you, but the rest of the world doesn't really care.
Winning slams is all that matters in tennis! Everybody talks about the Wimbledon winner, not about the great player that has nice head to heads against everybody but doesn't win a slam. Ask any tennis player what would you want to achieve as a tennis player. I bet you that they would say win Wimbledon or another slam. Not something like have a possitive head to head against Federer or Nadal. That would really be pathetic.

A valid point. But a lot of people on this board seem to think Federer's tally of 15 slams is not as important as Nadal's H2H against Federer (which is all that matters in tennis). Though I admit most of these people are Nadal fans and Sampras fans, for whatever its worth, pathetic or not.

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 07:48 AM
A casual skip through this thread suggests that GasketGoat is being sarcastic.

btw, The thread title is clearly "the favorite" not my favorite.

It's hard to tell. There are people on the board that say essentially the same things GG has said, but they are completely serious.

Sentinel
08-05-2009, 07:49 AM
It's hard to tell. There are people on the board that say essentially the same things GG has said, but they are completely serious.
but his arguments are coming back to very UNcreative : he would be tired/exhausted if he lost ones. There's not even an attempt at making it look serious.

GasquetGOAT
08-05-2009, 08:09 AM
but his arguments are coming back to very UNcreative : he would be tired/exhausted if he lost ones. There's not even an attempt at making it look serious.

But is't not a valid argument? Nearly all of Nadal's losses are due to either exhaustion or injury since he puts so much efforts into every single points (=fighter!), so you can't blame him for being tired, its just the nature of the game. I'm sorry if I haven't been as convincing as veroniquem, thetruth and etc. but I'm trying my best to fill their shoes in the absence of their graces.

rafan
08-05-2009, 09:53 AM
Nadal did not come out all guns blazing at the AO. Rather, softly softly he came and blew them all away

~ZoSo~
08-05-2009, 10:04 AM
Interesting, because Nadal then is O W N E D by both James Blake AND MIchail Youzhny!:twisted:

Just not in slam finals

Sephiroth619
08-05-2009, 10:10 AM
Where do you guys go to bet on tennis?

GameSampras
08-05-2009, 10:27 AM
Roddick isnt winning CRAP..

I cant believe people on here still actually think Roddick is going to walk away with another slam.. Thats lunacy. He has failed for 6 years to win one... He will fail until he retires.. he just doesnt have enough of an all around game..




I expect Djoker to make a big run here.. Murray as well and Fed.. Nadal will be questionable but I dont think he will have enough in the tank to do so.. He must be very rusty, and coming back off a hiatus, playing on your worst surface, and on a surface that strains your knees more.. He wont win it.


Its going to be between Fed, Djoker, and Murray

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 10:39 AM
What Roddick did with Federer - on grass - was extraordinary. And Roddick is better on hardcourt than he is on grass from what I understand.

So his chances are pretty decent.

dragonfire
08-05-2009, 10:40 AM
Roddick isnt winning CRAP..

I cant believe people on here still actually think Roddick is going to walk away with another slam.. Thats lunacy. He has failed for 6 years to win one... He will fail until he retires.. he just doesnt have enough of an all around game..




I expect Djoker to make a big run here.. Murray as well and Fed.. Nadal will be questionable but I dont think he will have enough in the tank to do so.. He must be very rusty, and coming back off a hiatus, playing on your worst surface, and on a surface that strains your knees more.. He wont win it.


Its going to be between Fed, Djoker, and Murray

So you would put a struggling djokovic over a confident roddick, interesting. Even though Roddick has outperformed Djokovic in every slam this year, plus his yearly 2-0 H2H against Novak.

If you noticed - roddick has developed an all round game, his backhand is solid, his conditioning is better than ever, he can approach and volley better, and the last time I checked he still has got a pretty decent serve and forehand

by the way, i love double negatives, see the bold writing

batz
08-05-2009, 10:56 AM
Where do you guys go to bet on tennis?

In the free world you're allowed to bet online ;)

maximo
08-05-2009, 10:58 AM
I feel Nadal and Murray are favorites. Federer is too preoccupied with his newly born twins. ;)

GameSampras
08-05-2009, 11:00 AM
So you would put a struggling djokovic over a confident roddick, interesting. Even though Roddick has outperformed Djokovic in every slam this year, plus his yearly 2-0 H2H against Novak.

If you noticed - roddick has developed an all round game, his backhand is solid, his conditioning is better than ever, he can approach and volley better, and the last time I checked he still has got a pretty decent serve and forehand

by the way, i love double negatives, see the bold writing



At the USO, I would put Djoker over Roddick.. Yes I would. Djoker is much more talented overrall.l Under these conditions of the way Djoker has been playing maybe not.. But again Murray and Fed stand in his way.. And Murray is much deadlier at the USO and Hardcourts in general than he is on grass I think we can all agree.


Roddick's BH has improved, His FH is nowhere near as deadly as it was before 5 or 6 years ago which has no doubt hurt Roddick IMO. His net game is still absolute crap.. and he may have better conditioning, but lets see his return game.. Not among the best at all.. And today you still need that great return game to achieve success.. How about Roddick's return of serve? Awful. His wimbeldon match with Roger proves this..

Roddick isnt winning the USO.. And its kind of funny with you guys.. It seems like every year or every slam, you guys are giving Roddick some big chance of taking one, and every he eventually disappoints you all..

Why dont you guys just call a spade a spade.. Roddick just isnt THAT GOOD to be winning multiple slams. If he was, he would have. Dont u agree?


IMO.. Roddick never should have let go of Brad Gilbert. I thought thats when Roddick was at his best and his opportunities were there.. Hes trying to adapt his style that may fit today, but the bottom line is, thats NOT HIS GAME. He should have just sticked to what he was good at. Big serving, followed up by lethal FH's instead of the "safe way" which has done a whole lot for him anyways.. He still remains sitting on one slam

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 11:07 AM
Djokovic, Gaudio, Safin, and Roddick are the only four people besides Nadal to have won a Slam since Federer won his first back in 2003.

Of those, only Roddick has made it to a Slam Final (or even semifinal for that matter) this year.. and Roddick is currently 2-0 against Djokovic this year.

rocket
08-05-2009, 11:08 AM
His net game is still absolute crap.. and he may have better conditioning, but lets see his return game.. Not among the best at all.. And today you still need that great return game to achieve success.. How about Roddick's return of serve? Awful. His wimbeldon match with Roger proves this..

He broke Fed twice at Wimby. Fed never broke Roddick until the very last game. Roddick was one point away from being two sets up, against Fed, in a slam final.

Something that both Djoker & Murray failed to achieve, against Fed, in a slam final.

Enigma_87
08-05-2009, 11:11 AM
Djokovic, Gaudio, and Roddick are the only three people to have won a Slam since Federer won his first back in 2003.

Only Roddick has made it to a Slam Final (or even semifinal for that matter) this year.. and Roddick is currently 2-0 against Djokovic this year.

Um?:-?........

maximo
08-05-2009, 11:13 AM
Something that both Djoker & Murray failed to achieve, against Fed, in a slam final.

1. Djokovic absolutely rinsed Federer in the semis of the AO. which is even worse for Federer's case.

2. Murray has only been beaten by Federer once in the slams. Besides, since then Murray's crushed Federer 4 matches in a row.

Gorecki
08-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Djokovic, Gaudio, and Roddick are the only three people to have won a Slam since Federer won his first back in 2003.

Only Roddick has made it to a Slam Final (or even semifinal for that matter) this year.. and Roddick is currently 2-0 against Djokovic this year.

Nadal, Safin?...

Gorecki
08-05-2009, 11:16 AM
1. Djokovic absolutely rinsed Federer in the semis of the AO. which is even worse for Federer's case.

2. Murray has only been beaten by Federer once in the slams. Besides, since then Murray's crushed Federer 4 matches in a row.

OJC... this guy is back? my god!

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 11:16 AM
Doh, I edited the post to change the wording and forgot to put "besides Nadal" back in. And I forgot about Safin. I'll fix it.

rocket
08-05-2009, 11:16 AM
1. Djokovic absolutely rinsed Federer in the semis of the AO. which is even worse for Federer's case.

2. Murray has only been beaten by Federer once in the slams. Besides, since then Murray's crushed Federer 4 matches in a row.

In a slam final, Fed is a completely different animal altogether. Yes, he could be vulnerable on his way to the final, but once there, only one guy can take him out.

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 11:19 AM
In a slam final, Fed is a completely different animal altogether. Yes, he could be vulnerable on his way to the final, but once there, only one guy can take him out.

Just because only one person has does not mean that only one person can.

drwood
08-05-2009, 11:36 AM
At the USO, I would put Djoker over Roddick.. Yes I would. Djoker is much more talented overrall.l Under these conditions of the way Djoker has been playing maybe not.. But again Murray and Fed stand in his way.. And Murray is much deadlier at the USO and Hardcourts in general than he is on grass I think we can all agree.

Roddick's BH has improved, His FH is nowhere near as deadly as it was before 5 or 6 years ago which has no doubt hurt Roddick IMO. His net game is still absolute crap.. and he may have better conditioning, but lets see his return game.. Not among the best at all.. And today you still need that great return game to achieve success.. How about Roddick's return of serve? Awful. His wimbeldon match with Roger proves this..

Roddick isnt winning the USO.. And its kind of funny with you guys.. It seems like every year or every slam, you guys are giving Roddick some big chance of taking one, and every he eventually disappoints you all..

Why dont you guys just call a spade a spade.. Roddick just isnt THAT GOOD to be winning multiple slams. If he was, he would have. Dont u agree?

IMO.. Roddick never should have let go of Brad Gilbert. I thought thats when Roddick was at his best and his opportunities were there.. Hes trying to adapt his style that may fit today, but the bottom line is, thats NOT HIS GAME. He should have just sticked to what he was good at. Big serving, followed up by lethal FH's instead of the "safe way" which has done a whole lot for him anyways.. He still remains sitting on one slam

Nice post...very objective (no sarcasm), but I'd have to respectfully disagree about Roddick not winning another slam. It is true that he should NEVER have gotten rid of Gilbert at the end of 04 -- he was basically completely lost from then until Aus Open 09. Even during that lost period of time, he made 2 Aus SF and 2 GS finals.

Plus, his old FH is back (as you saw in the Wimbledon SF and F) -- he's flattened it out a lot more. The biggest difference I see with Roddick is his serve -- he's actually THINKING about where to serve and mixing things up instead of just relying on blowing you off the court with 140+ MPH (of course, he should have been doing this his entire career -- a la Sampras -- but better late than never). His body serve was outstanding against Federer in the Wimbledon final, and will be even more effective on HC b/c of the higher bounce. I don't expect Djoker to consistently return his serve effectively -- plus Djoker doesn't do well in negative environments (he was visibly shaken by the booing during his SF against Federer last year), and the US Open fans still haven't forgiven him for his rant last year...I think Djoker is a prime upset candidate by someone like Querrey, Blake or Isner.

Return of serve is still Roddick's big weakness, but its improved from awful to average -- remember he did break Federer twice in the final. This is where he has made HUGE progress -- he no longer routinely chokes 2nd serve returns or tries to roll them back crosscourt at half speed -- he goes for his shots more which will make a big difference against baseliners who don't have great serves (i.e. Nadal, Djoker, Del Potro, Davydenko, etc.)

IMO the only ways Roddick doesn't make at least the SF is if:
1. He plays Federer in the QF -- I think he could win, but Fed would have to be the favorite, OR
2. He plays Safin early and Safin plays like he did in the 2000 US Open.

The only people who can beat Roddick in the US Open IMO are Murray and Fed. Fed b/c of H2H and is the only person who can outserve Roddick and win the tiebreakers, and Murray b/c of his movement, return of serve and form on HC this year.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 11:37 AM
Where do you guys go to bet on tennis?
Unibet, Betfair.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-05-2009, 11:38 AM
1. Djokovic absolutely rinsed Federer in the semis of the AO. which is even worse for Federer's case.

2. Murray has only been beaten by Federer once in the slams. Besides, since then Murray's crushed Federer 4 matches in a row.
There you go again , yeah "Rule britannia britannia rules the waves"...:evil:

norbac
08-05-2009, 11:46 AM
There you go again , yeah "Rule britannia britannia rules the waves"...:evil:

What's so wrong about what Maximo said? Neither of those points are opinion, they're fact.

BTW, welcome back Maximo.

GameSampras
08-05-2009, 11:47 AM
Nice post...very objective (no sarcasm), but I'd have to respectfully disagree about Roddick not winning another slam. It is true that he should NEVER have gotten rid of Gilbert at the end of 04 -- he was basically completely lost from then until Aus Open 09. Even during that lost period of time, he made 2 Aus SF and 2 GS finals.

Plus, his old FH is back (as you saw in the Wimbledon SF and F) -- he's flattened it out a lot more. The biggest difference I see with Roddick is his serve -- he's actually THINKING about where to serve and mixing things up instead of just relying on blowing you off the court with 140+ MPH (of course, he should have been doing this his entire career -- a la Sampras -- but better late than never). His body serve was outstanding against Federer in the Wimbledon final, and will be even more effective on HC b/c of the higher bounce. I don't expect Djoker to consistently return his serve effectively -- plus Djoker doesn't do well in negative environments (he was visibly shaken by the booing during his SF against Federer last year), and the US Open fans still haven't forgiven him for his rant last year...I think Djoker is a prime upset candidate by someone like Querrey, Blake or Isner.

Return of serve is still Roddick's big weakness, but its improved from awful to average -- remember he did break Federer twice in the final. This is where he has made HUGE progress -- he no longer routinely chokes 2nd serve returns or tries to roll them back crosscourt at half speed -- he goes for his shots more which will make a big difference against baseliners who don't have great serves (i.e. Nadal, Djoker, Del Potro, Davydenko, etc.)

IMO the only ways Roddick doesn't make at least the SF is if:
1. He plays Federer in the QF -- I think he could win, but Fed would have to be the favorite, OR
2. He plays Safin early and Safin plays like he did in the 2000 US Open.

The only people who can beat Roddick in the US Open IMO are Murray and Fed. Fed b/c of H2H and is the only person who can outserve Roddick and win the tiebreakers, and Murray b/c of his movement, return of serve and form on HC this year.

Very good post... And I will mostly agree.. Roddick definitely turned some eyes here at Wimbeldon.. But the fact remains, there is going to be SOMEONE standing in Roddick's way and there usually is who takes him out at a slam. If Not Fed, than someone. I really dont see Roddick ever getting as close as he did at Wimbeldon to beating Fed. Fed really blew some big points in that 1st set which should have been his.

Roddick blew the most precious set which was the 2nd which would have put him up 2 sets.. If that were to happen, I think right now we would be talking about Roddick the 2 TIME SLAM CHAMP, and with a USO and Wimbeldon under his belt. Im not sure if Roddick can play much better then he did there.. He pretty much maximized his capablities. Is playing under a different style of tennis, or at least TRYING TO, but I just dont think its enough to get the job done.. Again.. Still many glaring weaknesses his game. His net game which he leaves 30 acres of court open for a guy like Fed or Nadal or Djoker to wizz winners by.. Or his return of serve. Let Fed serve up a tray of 50 aces is just RIDICULOUS. Im sorry. Thats a big tell tail of the match right there. More pressure should have been put on Roger. Hes a good server but Roddick was making him out to be a Karlovic or Sampras. If your letting Fed hold serve that easy, then chances are not high you will win.. Fed needs pressure forced on his service game.. Nadal knows this which is a big reason why he has seen success. A great return game, especially return of serve can fluster Fed. Roddick just doesnt have these capablities.


If Roddick ever wants to see another slam again.. He may have to just try and hang on and maybe luck out and avoid the guys who can exploit his game.. As long as Fed is around, I dont see Roddick winning. Murray and Djoker (if he ever returns to his old form) stand in Roddick's way as well. If Djoker shows up at the USO to play Roddick like he did last year, tough luck on Roddick. We also dont know the type of run Nadal will make.. he may surprise us all.. And murray has proved he is probably at his best at the USO.. The odds are against Roddick right now.. But you never know.. He may luck out.

But as long as the big wigs are still in the USO by the quarters.. Roddick is knee deep in dog doo doo

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 11:52 AM
How can you think Roddick could have won Wimbledon, but can't win another slam?

GameSampras
08-05-2009, 11:57 AM
How can you think Roddick could have won Wimbledon, but can't win another slam?



Why hasnt he been able to win one for the last 6 years? Someone always standing in his way to best him.. Wimbeldon IMO will probably be the closest Roddick comes.. Djoker and Murray are eventually going step up and quit playing average at the slams and start getting ****ed after all these pretty subpar performances.. And Nadal will be returning. And then you stll have Fed playing at a high level . This leaves Roddick the odd man out

drwood
08-05-2009, 12:01 PM
Very good post... And I will mostly agree.. Roddick definitely turned some eyes here at Wimbeldon.. But the fact remains, there is going to be SOMEONE standing in Roddick's way and there usually is who takes him out at a slam. If Not Fed, than someone. I really dont see Roddick ever getting as close as he did at Wimbeldon to beating Fed. Fed really blew some big points in that 1st set which should have been his.

Roddick blew the most precious set which was the 2nd which would have put him up 2 sets.. If that were to happen, I think right now we would be talking about Roddick the 2 TIME SLAM CHAMP, and with a USO and Wimbeldon under his belt. Im not sure if Roddick can play much better then he did there.. He pretty much maximized his capablities. Is playing under a different style of tennis, or at least TRYING TO, but I just dont think its enough to get the job done.. Again.. Still many glaring weaknesses his game. His net game which he leaves 30 acres of court open for a guy like Fed or Nadal or Djoker to wizz winners by.. Or his return of serve. Let Fed serve up a tray of 50 aces is just RIDICULOUS. Im sorry. Thats a big tell tail of the match right there. More pressure should have been put on Roger. Hes a good server but Roddick was making him out to be a Karlovic or Sampras. If your letting Fed hold serve that easy, then chances are not high you will win.. Fed needs pressure forced on his service game.. Nadal knows this which is a big reason why he has seen success. A great return game, especially return of serve can fluster Fed. Roddick just doesnt have these capablities.

If Roddick ever wants to see another slam again.. He may have to just try and hang on and maybe luck out and avoid the guys who can exploit his game.. As long as Fed is around, I dont see Roddick winning. Murray and Djoker (if he ever returns to his old form) stand in Roddick's way as well. If Djoker shows up at the USO to play Roddick like he did last year, tough luck on Roddick. We also dont know the type of run Nadal will make.. he may surprise us all.. And murray has proved he is probably at his best at the USO.. The odds are against Roddick right now.. But you never know.. He may luck out

We know that Fed is not a good matchup for Roddick, but other than Fed, there really is no one who can serve Roddick off the court and put consistent pressure on Roddick's serve. I am fully persuaded that the way Roddick is playing now, he will have a positive H2H against Nadal in any slam except the French. Nadal has trouble with big servers and flat ballstrikers...Fed does not (i.e. Roddick, Karlovic, Ivanisevic, Sampras).

When Roddick has played well at a slam, its really only been Fed who has stood in his way. Roddick is playing a LOT better than in 06 when he made the US Open final...only Fed could beat him then (and Fed now isn't as good as he was in '06).

To me there are several ways for Roddick to win another slam:
1. Beat Fed (increasingly possible, but least likely)
2. Beat Nadal (more likely b/c much better matchup for Roddick than Fed is) after Nadal beats Fed -- we all know that's not an ideal matchup for Fed
3. Beat Murray (just like at Wimbledon) after Murray beats Fed

A lot of this is about matchups. For example, Agassi was a great matchup for Sampras, b/c he couldn't do the one thing that intimidated Pete (serving him off of the court, which took Pete out of his comfort zone), and he wasn't athletic enough to run down Pete's best shots; Krajicek and Safin on the other hand could, and that's why they had winning H2H against Sampras -- no one would say that either was as good a player as Agassi.

jonnythan
08-05-2009, 12:08 PM
Why hasnt he been able to win one for the last 6 years? Someone always standing in his way to best him.. Wimbeldon IMO will probably be the closest Roddick comes.. Djoker and Murray are eventually going step up and quit playing average at the slams and start getting ****ed after all these pretty subpar performances.. And Nadal will be returning. And then you stll have Fed playing at a high level . This leaves Roddick the odd man out

Well, it's been Federer who has knocked Roddick out of seven Slams so far. I don't see how you can say Roddick is the odd man out by saying that Djokovic and Murray are eventually going to step up when Roddick has beaten those two them by a combined 3-1 (2-0 in Slams) so far this year.

You could just as easily say "Roddick has made it to a Slam semifinal and Slam final this year, unlike Murray and Djokovic, and has knocked each of them out of a Slam so far this year, leaving Djokovic and Murray as the odd men out..."

LES
08-05-2009, 12:30 PM
To me there are several ways for Roddick to win another slam:
1. Beat Fed (increasingly possible, but least likely)
2. Beat Nadal (more likely b/c much better matchup for Roddick than Fed is) after Nadal beats Fed -- we all know that's not an ideal matchup for Fed
3. Beat Murray (just like at Wimbledon) after Murray beats Fed

A lot of this is about matchups. For example, Agassi was a great matchup for Sampras, b/c he couldn't do the one thing that intimidated Pete (serving him off of the court, which took Pete out of his comfort zone), and he wasn't athletic enough to run down Pete's best shots; Krajicek and Safin on the other hand could, and that's why they had winning H2H against Sampras -- no one would say that either was as good a player as Agassi.

I agree with you. He has a chance if someone else takes out Fed. But that a BIG "if".

I still think Fed is favorite to win.

beernutz
08-05-2009, 12:43 PM
Jerky is 13-7 over Smooth.:twisted: ;)

What's their record on surfaces other than clay?

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 03:04 AM
At the USO, I would put Djoker over Roddick.. Yes I would. Djoker is much more talented overrall.l Under these conditions of the way Djoker has been playing maybe not.. But again Murray and Fed stand in his way.. And Murray is much deadlier at the USO and Hardcourts in general than he is on grass I think we can all agree.


Roddick's BH has improved, His FH is nowhere near as deadly as it was before 5 or 6 years ago which has no doubt hurt Roddick IMO. His net game is still absolute crap.. and he may have better conditioning, but lets see his return game.. Not among the best at all.. And today you still need that great return game to achieve success.. How about Roddick's return of serve? Awful. His wimbeldon match with Roger proves this..

Roddick isnt winning the USO.. And its kind of funny with you guys.. It seems like every year or every slam, you guys are giving Roddick some big chance of taking one, and every he eventually disappoints you all..

Why dont you guys just call a spade a spade.. Roddick just isnt THAT GOOD to be winning multiple slams. If he was, he would have. Dont u agree?


IMO.. Roddick never should have let go of Brad Gilbert. I thought thats when Roddick was at his best and his opportunities were there.. Hes trying to adapt his style that may fit today, but the bottom line is, thats NOT HIS GAME. He should have just sticked to what he was good at. Big serving, followed up by lethal FH's instead of the "safe way" which has done a whole lot for him anyways.. He still remains sitting on one slam

i agree with what you say, but i give roddick some chance because he's probably my favourite player, what kind of fan would i be if i didn't give roddick a chance.

so do you reckon roddick would have won a slam if he kept gilbert???

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 08:30 AM
i agree with what you say, but i give roddick some chance because he's probably my favourite player, what kind of fan would i be if i didn't give roddick a chance.

so do you reckon roddick would have won a slam if he kept gilbert???




Yea I definitely would have given Roddick more of a chance had he kept Gilbert around.. I think GIlbert was the best for Andy and he played his best under GIlbert I feel. THere were a few years there where he was in no man's land. He has seem to have turned it up a bit recently, but it will only be for a short time I bet. He and others have tweaked and screwed with his game so much, hes practically in limbo.

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Yea I definitely would have given Roddick more of a chance had he kept Gilbert around.. I think GIlbert was the best for Andy and he played his best under GIlbert I feel. THere were a few years there where he was in no man's land. He has seem to have turned it up a bit recently, but it will only be for a short time I bet. He and others have tweaked and screwed with his game so much, hes practically in limbo.

i think the problem with roddick is that he wasted crucial years dealing with disgusting coaches. i think he wasted 2006 - 2008, in those three years he should have either kept brad gilbert or hired stefanki. Connors was good for the end of 06, but except for that roddick played like crap, i still believe he can win another slam or two.

drwood
08-06-2009, 08:43 AM
i think the problem with roddick is that he wasted crucial years dealing with disgusting coaches. i think he wasted 2006 - 2008, in those three years he should have either kept brad gilbert or hired stefanki. Connors was good for the end of 06, but except for that roddick played like crap, i still believe he can win another slam or two.

Getting rid of Gilbert was a big mistake...Roddick basically surrounded himself with yesmen as coaches until he sunk so low in 06 that he had lost all confidence -- and then Connors gave him confidence but no tactics.

The fact that Roddick last year felt his only chance at competing at the US Open was to skip the Olympics and hope to beat the top players b/c they were tired from the Olympics tells you about his state of mind a year ago.

Roddick finally humbled himself to seeking a real coach (not a yesman) and doing what he was told. The results are obvious. I agree that Roddick wasted some years, but he has some things going for him:
1. Unlikely he would have beaten Fed from 2005-07 anyway
2. Power players age well
3. The serve is the last thing to go (i.e. Sampras, Ivanisevic)

dragonfire
08-06-2009, 08:50 AM
Getting rid of Gilbert was a big mistake...Roddick basically surrounded himself with yesmen as coaches until he sunk so low in 06 that he had lost all confidence -- and then Connors gave him confidence but no tactics.

The fact that Roddick last year felt his only chance at competing at the US Open was to skip the Olympics and hope to beat the top players b/c they were tired from the Olympics tells you about his state of mind a year ago.

Roddick finally humbled himself to seeking a real coach (not a yesman) and doing what he was told. The results are obvious. I agree that Roddick wasted some years, but he has some things going for him:
1. Unlikely he would have beaten Fed from 2005-07 anyway
2. Power players age well
3. The serve is the last thing to go (i.e. Sampras, Ivanisevic)

i just wish that roddick would have hired stefanki along time ago, or either not getting rid of brad Gilbert. I agree with those points, and he can improve more, everyone can improve. It was Goldfine that started all of this mess in my opinion, telling roddick to completely modify his game..........SIGH

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:11 AM
Well if Roddick wants to grab another slam or two, he may not mess around and get to it within the next season or two. Hes not much of a spring chicken anymore either. Hes approaching 30 as well. Alot of what should be his best years physically are here or behind him.

And its not like he has taken time away from the sport to recuperate and gather himself ala Agassi. Hes been right there battling for the last 6 years or so. So hes got some mileage on him..

It may too little too late but, I do agree with some luck and avoiding some of the bigs at a slam or two, I think Roddick may still have a chance.. Depends on the draw.

フェデラー
08-06-2009, 09:15 AM
LOL troll thread. There is no possible way that Federer isnt the favorite. Nadal is injured and Federer has 2 grand slams, career grand slam, broke pete's record, and is on a 19 match win streak. Get real people!

cknobman
08-06-2009, 03:17 PM
A small part of me want to watch Roddick tear through the draw with a vengeance after his heartbreaking loss at Wimby.

But Im going to hold off on predicting fav's until Montreal is over and were a little closer to the tourney.

jonnythan
08-06-2009, 06:28 PM
26 is "almost 30" these days?

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 06:58 PM
Well if Roddick wants to grab another slam or two, he may not mess around and get to it within the next season or two. Hes not much of a spring chicken anymore either. Hes approaching 30 as well. Alot of what should be his best years physically are here or behind him.

And its not like he has taken time away from the sport to recuperate and gather himself ala Agassi. Hes been right there battling for the last 6 years or so. So hes got some mileage on him..

It may too little too late but, I do agree with some luck and avoiding some of the bigs at a slam or two, I think Roddick may still have a chance.. Depends on the draw.

Hes only 26.... and its not like he spends a lot of time running like Nadal.... when you have a 1st serve like his you save a lot of energy. Add on the fact that he works extremely hard to stay in shape, and does not mess with small injuries id say he could easily outlast Nadal. I mean the 12 Olympics are not a stretch for him

LeftySpin
08-06-2009, 06:58 PM
even i liked nadal and i would have to say federer is the favorite...despite the numbers, he could jsut lose to someone that isnt federer...im still saying fed and murray are the top favorites consdiering that murray's best surface is hard court, or at least he has had the best results on hard

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 07:05 PM
I think a lot of people on this board are still underestimating Connors contribution to Roddick. Was it not he who developed the Roddick BH, refining it now to the point where a poll was made on whether he BH topped Fed's.... i mean Roddick did tail off in end of 07, but it was more by chance. I mean his "throwing of the kitchen sink at Fed" at USO 07 should have occured at Wimby 07, but chocked big time. Then He ran into the hottest players in the Masters Djokovic and Ferrer. Then by chance as no5 he drew Federer. IF he was any other place in the draw he woud have made at least the SF. Then with that, he likely ends 07 in the top 4

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:30 PM
I think a lot of people on this board are still underestimating Connors contribution to Roddick. Was it not he who developed the Roddick BH, refining it now to the point where a poll was made on whether he BH topped Fed's.... i mean Roddick did tail off in end of 07, but it was more by chance. I mean his "throwing of the kitchen sink at Fed" at USO 07 should have occured at Wimby 07, but chocked big time. Then He ran into the hottest players in the Masters Djokovic and Ferrer. Then by chance as no5 he drew Federer. IF he was any other place in the draw he woud have made at least the SF. Then with that, he likely ends 07 in the top 4



No, Stefanki did far more improvements to the backhand. What Connors did was give Roddick his confidence back and basically told him to swing blindly and go into the net because his serve was so good that he'd almost never get broken. This was because Connors knew Roddick was never, ever, ever, going to beat Federer off the baseline in those years.



Stefanki in fact is the one who has fixed the majority of Roddick's game. He has gotten him to flatten out the FH more, to play smarter, play closer to the baseline, improved both his BH and netgame drastically, and to just generally play a better game. He doesn't have the scary power of 2004 Andy Roddick (although he can still bring the heat when he wants to), but he is faster and fitter, and tactically a better player.

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 07:32 PM
No, Stefanki did far more improvements to the backhand. What Connors did was give Roddick his confidence back and basically told him to swing blindly and go into the net because his serve was so good that he'd almost never get broken. This was because Connors knew Roddick was never, ever, ever, going to beat Federer off the baseline in those years.



Stefanki in fact is the one who has fixed the majority of Roddick's game. He has gotten him to flatten out the FH more, to play smarter, play closer to the baseline, improved both his BH and netgame drastically, and to just generally play a better game. He doesn't have the scary power of 2004 Andy Roddick (although he can still bring the heat when he wants to), but he is faster and fitter, and tactically a better player.

If you dont believe me watch Andy's USO 06 QF vs Hewitt on Youtube.... his BH was working like clockwork

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:33 PM
If you dont believe me watch Andy's USO 06 QF vs Hewitt on Youtube.... his BH was working like clockwork



He did make some improvements to the backhand, but Roddick still struggled with that side on the return especially. It wasn't until Stefanki did Roddick's BH return made a huge jump. Also, Roddick's crosscourt backhand has improved tremendously under Stefanki.

Conquistador
08-06-2009, 07:35 PM
I think a lot of people on this board are still underestimating Connors contribution to Roddick. Was it not he who developed the Roddick BH, refining it now to the point where a poll was made on whether he BH topped Fed's.... i mean Roddick did tail off in end of 07, but it was more by chance. I mean his "throwing of the kitchen sink at Fed" at USO 07 should have occured at Wimby 07, but chocked big time. Then He ran into the hottest players in the Masters Djokovic and Ferrer. Then by chance as no5 he drew Federer. IF he was any other place in the draw he woud have made at least the SF. Then with that, he likely ends 07 in the top 4

Connors was great for Andy Roddick's development. Roddick was an arrogant pompous jerk before he ran into Connors. Jimmy Connors straightened out Roddick in a big way. You can say that Connors "humbled" Roddick. It is still on roddick to perfrom but having a hall of famer teach you little tricks is better than any other coach out there. Connors was the man with the plan.

clayman2000
08-06-2009, 07:36 PM
He did make some improvements to the backhand, but Roddick still struggled with that side on the return especially. It wasn't until Stefanki did Roddick's BH return made a huge jump. Also, Roddick's crosscourt backhand has improved tremendously under Stefanki.

I will give credit for the CC BH to larry, but Connors really improved the DTL BH. Im not saying Connors is a better coach then Stefanki, cause hes not... all im saying is that Connors shouls not be put in the same category as those clowns John Roddick and Dean Goldfine

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 07:37 PM
I will give credit for the CC BH to larry, but Connors really improved the DTL BH. Im not saying Connors is a better coach then Stefanki, cause hes not... all im saying is that Connors shouls not be put in the same category as those clowns John Roddick and Dean Goldfine



Oh of course not, but Connors is not a proper coach anyways. What Connors did was give Roddick the confidence to play at the top, and he did attempt to try and help Andy play more aggressive off the ground. However, Connors limited knowledge as a coach can only go so far (although he did a pretty good job IMO for having such a lack of experience).

deltox
08-06-2009, 08:18 PM
Why hasnt he been able to win one for the last 6 years? Someone always standing in his way to best him.. Wimbeldon IMO will probably be the closest Roddick comes.. Djoker and Murray are eventually going step up and quit playing average at the slams and start getting ****ed after all these pretty subpar performances.. And Nadal will be returning. And then you stll have Fed playing at a high level . This leaves Roddick the odd man out

you haver stated on many occasion he would never make another final as well.. now again you go back and restate this is his last run at anything. no chance of a slam. you should shovel the stuff your swimming in. Roddick will be in another slam final within a calendar year and might just win one and make you crazy envious

GameSampras
08-06-2009, 09:57 PM
you haver stated on many occasion he would never make another final as well.. now again you go back and restate this is his last run at anything. no chance of a slam. you should shovel the stuff your swimming in. Roddick will be in another slam final within a calendar year and might just win one and make you crazy envious




Did I say Roddick would never reach another final? Refresh my memory.. If the circumstances are right, crazy things can happen obviously for a longer shot.. But I still dont think he will taste another slam victory.. I mean how much closer can u come, that he came at Wimbeldon and still couldnt pull it off, with quite a bit of opportunities I might add

NamRanger
08-06-2009, 10:02 PM
Did I say Roddick would never reach another final? Refresh my memory.. If the circumstances are right, crazy things can happen obviously for a longer shot.. But I still think he will taste another slam victory.. I mean how much closer can u come, that he came at Wimbeldon and still couldnt pull it off, with quite a bit of opportunities I might add



Kind of hard when Federer is standing in your way who is just a terrible match-up for Roddick on top of all of that.

DarthMaul
08-06-2009, 10:22 PM
Nadal must be injured if he fails to win USO. Like I said Nadal is the favorite.

Based on what facts? How is he a favorite when he never reached the USO final?
IMO Roddick has better chances than Nadal. It's a fast hardcourt and Roddick is the biggest server in the world. In addition to that, he improved his game A LOT.

zagor
08-06-2009, 10:26 PM
Based on what facts? How is he a favorite when he never reached the USO final?
IMO Roddick has better chances than Nadal. It's a fast hardcourt and Roddick is the biggest server in the world. In addition to that, he improved his game A LOT.

Ever heard of sarcasm?

DMan
08-06-2009, 10:28 PM
Screw the bookies or odds. Nadal is the favorite no matter what. 13-7 and 5-2 are the only numbers that matter.

Actually, 0 is the only number that matters.

0 is the number of times Nadal has been in a US Open final
0 is the number of times Nadal has won the US Open.

Certainly when you have 0, or nothing on your side of the ledger, one could understand why you would be the "favorite" to win the US Open! LOL!:?

DarthMaul
08-06-2009, 10:30 PM
Ever heard of sarcasm?

My sarcasm detector is broken :(

rommil
08-06-2009, 11:39 PM
Nadal did not come out all guns blazing at the AO. Rather, softly softly he came and blew them all away

Nadal's going to blow everybody away with his tendonitis dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dda3SYNk5h4

dragonfire
08-07-2009, 02:00 AM
He did make some improvements to the backhand, but Roddick still struggled with that side on the return especially. It wasn't until Stefanki did Roddick's BH return made a huge jump. Also, Roddick's crosscourt backhand has improved tremendously under Stefanki.

i actually think roddick's backhand return is good, he knows what he wants to do with it, he normally flattens that side out though. His forehand return is his weakest element of his game, where he doesn't know what to do with it and simply slices/blocks it back. His backhand return has more penetration.

Andy G
08-07-2009, 03:46 AM
Good point. But its like with the GOAT's issues, H2H is all that matters in tennis.

so, by this line of reasoning, if I played nadal once and won, never played another game of tennis for the rest of my life, nadal could never ever be the greatest of all time. not even if he won 100 slams, 600 weeks #1, 20 year end #1's, 99.999% winning every year. simply because he never beat me. Great logic there.