PDA

View Full Version : roddick is not mentally weak


dragonfire
08-10-2009, 01:59 AM
How many times has the guy been down and out in his career, and came back strong to win? If he was mentally week, most of the titles won probably would not be in his trophy cabinet by now, especially the US open title where he battled back against Nalbandian; stayed mentally strong and didn't give up. How many times has the guy been KO'd by federer and came back!!!

He's saved match points quite a few times in his career too. El Aynaoui in the AO 2003, agass in queens 03, fish in cincy 03, nalbandian US open 2003, mahut in queens 2007, shwank in LMC 2008, Haas in madrid this year. There have also been matches this year where he has been severly outplayed and still won (hewitt memphis). The guy never throws in the towel, even when the odds are against him. He beat hewitt in a 5th setter in wimbledon and held his nerve against murray also.

Ok, so he did choke against federer, with the 4 set points. He was making great volleys in that match but ****ed up on that one, but he showed his mental side by sticking with federer all through the match, and kept his chin up and never backed down and only just lost when lesser players would have gave up.

Granted, he might not have the mental strength of nadal,hewitt or federer, but he's not far off, remember, nadal (toughest out there) choked in the 4th set TB against fed in wimbledon. Everyone misses chances - it's always going to happen. Sooner or later you will fail to convert.

And yesterday, some posters claimed that roddick choked against del potro and was mentally unstable, Roddick didn't really lose that match, del potro won it and played good, roddick played good also, but i don't think roddick had a clear chance of winning the match - even when he was a break up in the 3rd because the match was still so tight.

Players like gasquet, safin and nalbandian are mentally week (safin i think is just angry that ****s his brain up) and fail to keep it together.

these are just a few reasons why i think roddick is mentally pretty strong

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-10-2009, 03:30 AM
Yeah, if I were Roddick, I'd be encouraged by Washington, not discouraged. In his first tournament since the most devastating loss of his career, he pulled up his bootstraps and made it to the finals, damn near winning it, but instead losing very closely to a guy who was ranked ahead of him mere weeks ago.

Good match and good tournament overall for Roddick. Even if he doesn't do as well at Montreal or Cincinnati, in terms of results, the U.S. Open Series is about getting geared up and ready for the U.S. Open, which I think he will be come Aug. 31

wyutani
08-10-2009, 03:31 AM
of course he aint mentally weak. hw can he be a top 10-ner and be mentally weak?

dragonfire
08-10-2009, 03:33 AM
of course he aint mentally weak. hw can he be a top 10-ner and be mentally weak?

i do believe safin, nalbandian,henman, gasquet got quite high in the rankinga

Fedfan1234
08-10-2009, 04:06 AM
i do believe safin, nalbandian,henman, gasquet got quite high in the rankinga Exclude Safin add Berdych and I agree. You cannot beat Federer in SF AO or Sampras in Final US open and be mentally weak. Remember he was breakpoint down against Federer, if you are mentally weak you cannot recover from that.
Roddick is not mentally weak but against Federer he does seem to lack a little confidence at times. But if you are 19 - 2 down this can happen to you.

Terr
08-10-2009, 09:17 AM
A Rod is not mentally weak! He's one of the most consistent players around! Roddick's been my favourite player for a long long time. Before Nadal was around I loved the Roddick/Fed rivalry. I think my dislike for Fed probably stems from my like of Roddick.

After all, a Sox fan can't like the Yanks, eh? :P

Or for a fellow Brit, Liverpool fans need to shoot Chelsea fans on sight.

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 09:21 AM
What do you call choking countless set points away in the finals of this past wimbeldonw which could have put him up 2 sets on Fed and the match most likely in his hands?

Or blowing a big points at Wimbeldon a few years ago which could have already given him 2 Wimbeldon titles, if he actually had the mental toughness and could perform well in the clutch? How about yesterday vs Del Potro?

Roddick is not that mentally tough. He may not been a complete headcase.. But hes not the most clutch or mentally tough player out there.

He cant put matches away when he should. He lets his opponent hang around, gives him the opening and then opponent beats him.

Cesc Fabregas
08-10-2009, 09:22 AM
He sure looked mentally weak when he fluffed the easiest volley of all time at set point against Fededer.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 09:24 AM
of course he aint mentally weak. hw can he be a top 10-ner and be mentally weak?
Wow, then how come all the Nad-***** are claiming FEDERER to be mentally weak??? Amazing!!

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 09:25 AM
He sure looked mentally weak when he fluffed the easiest volley of all time at set point against Fededer.
That happened in a split second, that is not mental weakness, mental weakness is when you do 3 df in a decisive tie-breaker, what happened to Roddick at Wimbledon was that he just froze on that backhand-volley

TheFifthSet
08-10-2009, 09:30 AM
i'm mentally weak. yup yup. :/


i'm not sure who ever claimed that roddick was. the consensus is that it seems to be one of his strengths.

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 09:32 AM
That happened in a split second, that is not mental weakness, mental weakness is when you do 3 df in a decisive tie-breaker, what happened to Roddick at Wimbledon was that he just froze on that backhand-volley

Mental weakness is not converting on 4 set points.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Mental weakness is not converting on 4 set points.
Yes, it is, but not missing an easy bh-volley on setpoint. Missing 4 set-points can also be the result of your opponent simply outplays you 4 points in a row, then it is not mental weakness.

Terr
08-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Wow, then how come all the Nad-***** are claiming FEDERER to be mentally weak??? Amazing!!

:( I don't think Fed is mentally weak. I just think there are players who are mentally stronger.

*cough*Nadal*cough*

:P

Cesc Fabregas
08-10-2009, 09:34 AM
Mental weakness is not converting on 4 set points.

He was up about 5-1 in that breaker and blew it.

TheFifthSet
08-10-2009, 09:35 AM
Mental weakness is not converting on 4 set points.

in three of which he was outrallied by federer.


nice to know we can decipher so much from four points (or one point, for that matter.)

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 09:41 AM
in three of which he was outrallied by federer.


nice to know we can decipher so much from four points (or one point, for that matter.)

No excuses though.. Especially considering Roddick's serve and the way he was playing that day..

That was an easy put away wolley he missed. Roddick then if he was getting outrallied from the baseline should have instantly put Pressure on Fed following his big serve and attacked.. Unfortunately Roddick doesnt have the confidence in his net game. Obviously he cant expect to go toe to toe with ROger from the baseline and expect to win.. He isnt a great returner and he isnt Nadal. Changes in your strategy need to be made.


Youre not going to outrally Fed from the baseline not being a great returner.

stanfordtennis alum
08-10-2009, 09:50 AM
roddick is very strong mentally and is a fighter, not a quiter.. give the man some credit.. the last 2 matches he lost are heartbreakers

TMF
08-10-2009, 09:54 AM
He won 500 matches at the age of 27, that’s not WEAK. I think Rodddick would be multi-slam winners in any other decade.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 09:55 AM
:( I don't think Fed is mentally weak. I just think there are players who are mentally stronger.

*cough*Nadal*cough*

:P
There are some nice decent objective Nadal-*****, like a diamond in a rough

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 09:56 AM
He won 500 matches at the age of 27, that’s not WEAK. I think Rodddick would be multi-slam winners in any other decade.
I agree, Roddick would have had at least 2-3 GS in the 90`s (i know Game Sampras is gonna have a heart-attack now but this is my humble opinion)

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 09:59 AM
He won 500 matches at the age of 27, that’s not WEAK. I think Rodddick would be multi-slam winners in any other decade.

I disagree with that totally..


What decade (70s, 80's,90s) is Roddick going to be a multi-slam winner in?

Well I can account for Roddick in the 90s since thats when I began watching.. Some others who witness the 70s and 80s would like to chime in here go ahead.

In the 90s

French- Roddick isnt winning any of those we can agree. Too many guys around who could take him out

Early 90s, Roddick doesnt see any slams.. His best bet would have to come in the late late 90s.
Wimbeldon- Sampras reigned supreme, and how would Roddick handle the attack of guys like Goran (We saw what goran did to roddick at Wimbeldon), Kraijeck in 96, Becker and others. Roddick isnt beating Sampras anyways, so Roddick doesnt see a Wimbeldon title

Australian Open- Maybe a late 90s Australian Open title where the competition was rather weaker. Though thats not guaranteed

US0- Maybe one during the years Sampras was injured 97-98. Roddick doesnt win any prior to 96. But you still have Rafter who was very good there. Then you have Andre coming back in 99 .. Roddick if he is lucky grabs a USO title.



As far as the 80s, the competition was even greater.. Possibly the greatest competition in history. Roddick would be lucky to see a slam

maximo
08-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Roddick is as weak as they get.

TheFifthSet
08-10-2009, 10:02 AM
No excuses though.. Especially considering Roddick's serve and the way he was playing that day..

That was an easy put away wolley he missed. Roddick then if he was getting outrallied from the baseline should have instantly put Pressure on Fed following his big serve and attacked.. Unfortunately Roddick doesnt have the confidence in his net game. Obviously he cant expect to go toe to toe with ROger from the baseline and expect to win.. He isnt a great returner and he isnt Nadal. Changes in your strategy need to be made.


Youre not going to outrally Fed from the baseline not being a great returner.

it's still only four points. i'm sure you will find thousands of four-point sequences in sampras's career that were played far worse than roddick. i don't think four points hold a lot of explanatory power.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:03 AM
Roddick is as weak as they get.
Wait!!! Wait!! Wait!!! You should have never posted this!! To SPANK Andy Murrays butt at Wimbledon in a semi-final, with a negative h2h,in front of 17,000 crazy brits, T H A T is not mental weakness! Plz explain urself!:evil:

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:04 AM
I disagree with that totally..


What decade (70s, 80's,90s) is Roddick going to be a multi-slam winner in?

Well I can account for Roddick in the 90s since thats when I began watching.. Some others who witness the 70s and 80s would like to chime in here go ahead.

In the 90s

French- Roddick isnt winning any of those we can agree. Too many guys around who could take him out

Early 90s, Roddick doesnt see any slams.. His best bet would have to come in the late late 90s.
Wimbeldon- Sampras reigned supreme, and how would Roddick handle the attack of guys like Goran (We saw what goran did to roddick at Wimbeldon), Kraijeck in 96, Becker and others. Roddick isnt beating Sampras anyways, so Roddick doesnt see a Wimbeldon title

Australian Open- Maybe a late 90s Australian Open title where the competition was rather weaker. Though thats not guaranteed

US0- Maybe one during the years Sampras was injured 97-98. Roddick doesnt win any prior to 96. But you still have Rafter who was very good there. Then you have Andre coming back in 99 .. Roddick if he is lucky grabs a USO title.



As far as the 80s, the competition was even greater.. Possibly the greatest competition in history. Roddick would be lucky to see a slam

Kafelnikov won multiple slams in the 90`s, Rafter won multiple slams in the 90`s, I see Roddick as a better hc and grass-player than these guys.

TheFifthSet
08-10-2009, 10:04 AM
Roddick is as weak as they get.

weak players don't stay in the top 10 for almost a decade. i'm not a roddick fan, but he's remained as consistent as long as he has because of the fact that he doesn't have lapses as some of the headcases that polute the tour do.

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:06 AM
I agree, Roddick would have had at least 2-3 GS in the 90`s (i know Game Sampras is gonna have a heart-attack now but this is my humble opinion)

Right.
Roddick was unlucky b/c he had to faced Federer everytime he had a chance to win a slam. I just don’t think there’s no player in any era like TMF denying Roddick so many times. Hits and misses, I think Roddick could pull out SW19 and USO in the 90s’ a few times too.

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:08 AM
Roddick is as weak as they get.

Murray must be much weaker. He had thousands of fans rooting behind his back at SW19, but Roddick destroyed Murray in the semi. He actually beat Murray and the hostile crowd combined. LOL

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Murray must be much weaker. He had thousands of fans rooting behind his back at SW19, but Roddick destroyed Murray in the semi. He actually beat Murray and the hostile crowd combined. LOL
Exactly, agree with both of your posts!

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 10:09 AM
Kafelnikov won multiple slams in the 90`s, Rafter won multiple slams in the 90`s, I see Roddick as a better hc and grass-player than these guys.



Kafelnokov was a solid clay court.. And he only won 2 slams I believe. Rafter only won 2 slams but he also had an outstanding net game.. Moreso than Roddick. And I think Rafter at his peak was a little better than Roddick.. Yea I said it:) But watch some rafter at the USO in the late 90s and you will see


When someone says multiple Im thinking 5-6 slams. Not 2 slams

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:12 AM
Kafelnokov was a solid clay court.. And he only won 2 slams I believe. Rafter only won 2 slams but he also had an outstanding net game.. Moreso than Roddick.


When someone says multiple Im thinking 5-6 slams. Not 2 slams
Im saying 2-3 slams, not 5-6.Then we are talking Edberg and Becker, Roddick is far from them,Yes.
You dont think Roddick with his huge serve and huge forehand would have won ANY Wimbledons Us Opens or Australian Opens in the 90`s??? Are u seriously saying this? Korda won slams in the 90`s!! Thomas Enqvist was a slam-finalist! Philipoussis was a slam-finalist twice! come on man!

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:15 AM
Murray must be much weaker. He had thousands of fans rooting behind his back at SW19, but Roddick destroyed Murray in the semi. He actually beat Murray and the hostile crowd combined. LOL

Murray was not 'destroyed' in that match. It was very tight, especially in the tie breaks. Murray would 'destroy' Roddick however if they meet at the USO.

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:16 AM
Kafelnokov was a solid clay court.. And he only won 2 slams I believe. Rafter only won 2 slams but he also had an outstanding net game.. Moreso than Roddick. And I think Rafter at his peak was a little better than Roddick.. Yea I said it:) But watch some rafter at the USO in the late 90s and you will see


When someone says multiple Im thinking 5-6 slams. Not 2 slams

Kafelnikov had one of the weakest RG draw in 1996. If you believe me, then post all of his wins in that year and we can discuss.

He won AO, but what did he said after the tourney? He said he “thank you” to Pete for not showing up, so it made it possible for him to win. LOL

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:20 AM
Murray was not 'destroyed' in that match. It was very tight, especially in the tie breaks. Murray would 'destroy' Roddick however if they meet at the USO.

They never met at the USO. Thanks for expressing your opinion, but not fact.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:20 AM
Murray was not 'destroyed' in that match. It was very tight, especially in the tie breaks. Murray would 'destroy' Roddick however if they meet at the USO.

How come all your posts are related to "what ifs" and "you'll see" kind of argument? Roddick defeated Murray when everyone expected him to lose, and the best recourse you have is "you'll see". Just like you say to the Fed fans it'll be funny if Fed loses @ the USO, it'll be even more hilarious to see you tuck your tail and run again if Murray loses at the USO. Just like you did when he lost @ Wimbledon, lol.

I think the saying is "Don't write a check that your (or in this case, Murray's) *** can't cash." I would think you'd learned that after the Wimbledon debacle. :?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:23 AM
maximo: Im dying to hear your reply and explenation to post 25.

VivalaVida
08-10-2009, 10:24 AM
Murray was not 'destroyed' in that match. It was very tight, especially in the tie breaks. Murray would 'destroy' Roddick however if they meet at the USO.
Roddick plays his heart out at the US open. Murray wont destroy Roddick at all. It will be a close one is what I am saying.

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:26 AM
They never met at the USO. Thanks for expressing your opinion, but not fact.

Your rather silly opinion on what happened in the Roddick match was anything but fact.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:27 AM
Roddick plays his heart out at the US open. Murray wont destroy Roddick at all. It will be a close one is what I am saying.
Agree, noone destroys Roddick at the Us Open,and definetely not Murray.

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:29 AM
How come all your posts are related to "what ifs" and "you'll see" kind of argument? Roddick defeated Murray when everyone expected him to lose, and the best recourse you have is "you'll see". Just like you say to the Fed fans it'll be funny if Fed loses @ the USO, it'll be even more hilarious to see you tuck your tail and run again if Murray loses at the USO. Just like you did when he lost @ Wimbledon, lol.

I think the saying is "Don't write a check that your (or in this case, Murray's) *** can't cash." I would think you'd learned that after the Wimbledon debacle. :?

Murray squashed Roddick in Doha, Which is played on HC. I can see the same happening at the USO.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:32 AM
Murray squashed Roddick in Doha, Which is played on HC. I can see the same happening at the USO.
New York and Doha is not exactly the same places last time i checked, i remeber that match and you can be sure that Roddick won`t play nearly as bad at the Us Open as he did there, AND, it was early in the season. Roddick usually starts to firing up around the summer.

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:33 AM
Your rather silly opinion on what happened in the Roddick match was anything but fact.

Roddick beat Murray and the hostile crowd. That's no opinion but plain FACT!!!!!!!

Your quote....
"Murray would 'destroy' Roddick however if they meet at the USO."

Your post is silly to even think he would "destroy" Roddick when Roddick is a better player this year while Murray is a totally underchieved this year. LOL

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:34 AM
New York and Doha is not exactly the same places last time i checked, i remeber that match and you can be sure that Roddick won`t play nearly as bad at the Us Open as he did there, AND, it was early in the season. Roddick usually starts to firing up around the summer.

Huh?? A hard court is not a hard court? :lol:

VivalaVida
08-10-2009, 10:35 AM
At the USO, Roddick will never get broken as easily as he did in Doha. Murray is gonna have his hands full when 130 plus serves are gonna be shooting up at him.

jamesblakefan#1
08-10-2009, 10:37 AM
Murray squashed Roddick in Doha, Which is played on HC. I can see the same happening at the USO.

Right...but you're saying Murray "will" beat Roddick at the USO, just like you said Murray "will" beat Roddick at Wimbledon, and Murray "will" beat Federer at Wimbledon, and Murray "will'' win Wimbledon...if I were you, I'd stop making so many bold predictions, would save you the embarrassment you suffered after Wimbledon once again.

As others have said to you time and time again, the slams and regular tourneys are two different things. You can't say something definetly "will" happen based off of warm up events.

Roddick's showing better form than he had at the start of the year, so to say it "will" happen based off of a match from January is misguided, especially considering the fact that Roddick "did" beat Murray the last time they face one another in a slam.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:37 AM
Huh?? A hard court is not a hard court? :lol:
Im talking about the surroundings, the atmosphere, and about the surface im not exactly sure it is the same, Us Open is very fast.

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:39 AM
Your post is silly to even think he would "destroy" Roddick when Roddick is a better player this year while Murray is a totally underchieved this year. LOL

Has Roddick won anything this year?? :lol:

Roddick is a one slam wonder and you very well know that. Murray will surpass Roddick's rather minimal 1 slam.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:41 AM
Has Roddick won anything this year?? :lol:

Roddick is a one slam wonder and you very well know that. Murray will surpass Roddick's rather minimal 1 slam.
Murray is a 0 slam "wonder"...at the age of 22 Roddick had 1 slam, Murrays got 0, and Murray came along at a much better time than Roddick.

maximo
08-10-2009, 10:43 AM
Murray is a 0 slam "wonder"...at the age of 22 Roddick had 1 slam, Murrays got 0, and Murray came along at a much better time than Roddick.

You can't exactly say that since the final slam of the year hasn't been played yet. Murray has time on his side, and his best chance of winning his first slam in New York this month.

TMF
08-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Has Roddick won anything this year?? :lol:

Roddick is a one slam wonder and you very well know that. Murray will surpass Roddick's rather minimal 1 slam.

Again, all speculation as to whether Murray will surpass Roddick.

He can’t even win with the crowd supporting him to the bitter end. The match against Wawrinka at SW19 he BARELY survive with plenty of help from the British fans. So how is he going against Roddick when 20000+ crowd totally on Roddick’s side.

All we know is Roddick is a better player this year b/c he's lose some weight, got fitter and a better mover. Murray as we know so far, is overhype and is underachieving.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-10-2009, 10:53 AM
You can't exactly say that since the final slam of the year hasn't been played yet. Murray has time on his side, and his best chance of winning his first slam in New York this month.
You still havent answered post 25, im sooo curious to hear...

drwood
08-10-2009, 02:46 PM
I disagree with that totally..


What decade (70s, 80's,90s) is Roddick going to be a multi-slam winner in?

Well I can account for Roddick in the 90s since thats when I began watching.. Some others who witness the 70s and 80s would like to chime in here go ahead.

In the 90s

French- Roddick isnt winning any of those we can agree. Too many guys around who could take him out

Early 90s, Roddick doesnt see any slams.. His best bet would have to come in the late late 90s.
Wimbeldon- Sampras reigned supreme, and how would Roddick handle the attack of guys like Goran (We saw what goran did to roddick at Wimbeldon), Kraijeck in 96, Becker and others. Roddick isnt beating Sampras anyways, so Roddick doesnt see a Wimbeldon title

Australian Open- Maybe a late 90s Australian Open title where the competition was rather weaker. Though thats not guaranteed

US0- Maybe one during the years Sampras was injured 97-98. Roddick doesnt win any prior to 96. But you still have Rafter who was very good there. Then you have Andre coming back in 99 .. Roddick if he is lucky grabs a USO title.



As far as the 80s, the competition was even greater.. Possibly the greatest competition in history. Roddick would be lucky to see a slam

Slams prime Roddick could win in the 90s:
1990 US Open -- was a better server than Sampras at that time of Pete's career
1997 and 98 US Open -- Rafter not a lock to beat him
1999 US Open -- much better than Todd Martin who took Agassi to 5 sets

I agree about Wimbledon -- probably not winning in the 90s, but would make a few finals (96, 97, 98)

French -- nope

Aus Open
1996 Aus Open -- more fit than Becker, more powerful than Chang
1998 Aus Open -- Better than Korda, Rios, or Kucera
1999 Aus Open -- better than Kafelnikov or Enqvist

So that's 7 slams that he could realistically win in the 90s -- he'd probably win 3 or 4 of them.

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 09:59 PM
Slams prime Roddick could win in the 90s:
1990 US Open -- was a better server than Sampras at that time of Pete's career
1997 and 98 US Open -- Rafter not a lock to beat him
1999 US Open -- much better than Todd Martin who took Agassi to 5 sets

I agree about Wimbledon -- probably not winning in the 90s, but would make a few finals (96, 97, 98)

French -- nope

Aus Open
1996 Aus Open -- more fit than Becker, more powerful than Chang
1998 Aus Open -- Better than Korda, Rios, or Kucera
1999 Aus Open -- better than Kafelnikov or Enqvist

So that's 7 slams that he could realistically win in the 90s -- he'd probably win 3 or 4 of them.



How is Roddick going to win the USO in 1990? Agassi, Mac, Lendl, Pete would all stand in his way. Roddick no doubt is going out to one of them. No doubt about that.

Dont see Roddick beating Prime Agassi at the USO in 1999 either.. Agassi was the superior HC player, and playing the best tennis of his career. No way does Roddick win.

The Australian Opens.. Yea maybe I could see one or two in the late 90s when they were up for a grabs.

Not sure about Rafter.. Rafter was a sun of a gun in 97 and 98 at the Open And pete was hurt.. SO maybe Roddick could grab one anyways..


Roddick isnt collecting too many slams though. 2-3 maybe.. MAYBE!!! But he isnt a lock. He certainly isnt winning 7 SLAMS though!! Thats just silly.. 2-4 sound alright. But most would of them would have to come in the late 90s. ANything prior to 96 doubtful Roddick is winning anything

GameSampras
08-10-2009, 10:03 PM
Murray is a 0 slam "wonder"...at the age of 22 Roddick had 1 slam, Murrays got 0, and Murray came along at a much better time than Roddick.

Murray is a zero slam wonder now.. But hes only been significant for around a year now.. Murray may not have a great, capitivating career, but I definitely see him winning more than 1 slam.

Can't think of a name
08-10-2009, 10:08 PM
Its impossible to be mentally weak when your a consistent top 10 player in the world.

Zeppy
08-11-2009, 05:48 AM
Has Roddick won anything this year?? :lol:

Roddick is a one slam wonder and you very well know that. Murray will surpass Roddick's rather minimal 1 slam.

Well, to be fair, Roddick did win Memphis if that is what you mean.

And who knows? Roddick may win another slam. He was pretty close at Wimbledon this year.

FiveO
08-11-2009, 10:13 AM
Slams prime Roddick could win in the 90s:
1990 US Open -- was a better server than Sampras at that time of Pete's career
1997 and 98 US Open -- Rafter not a lock to beat him
1999 US Open -- much better than Todd Martin who took Agassi to 5 sets

I agree about Wimbledon -- probably not winning in the 90s, but would make a few finals (96, 97, 98)

French -- nope

Aus Open
1996 Aus Open -- more fit than Becker, more powerful than Chang
1998 Aus Open -- Better than Korda, Rios, or Kucera
1999 Aus Open -- better than Kafelnikov or Enqvist

So that's 7 slams that he could realistically win in the 90s -- he'd probably win 3 or 4 of them.

1990 US Open? His serve was better than Sampras's? If you say so. How about absolutely every other element of Sampras's game? No chance, not if you are correlating his 2009 to 1999, and working backward. What's the thought here, Roddick's peak was a full 10 years in length. You have to go back and look at Roddick's early results at the same age. Forget 1990 for Roddick.

'97 and '98 US Opens. Highly unlikely if he were coming from the other half of Rafter's draw. Henman remained a tick better than Roddick in their h2h and Rafter was a tick better than Henman throughout and rarely blinked in a big spot from '97 through 2001. As close to a lock as one could get. Overall, and this remains a theme throughout Roddick's career, even taking Federer out of it, Roddick doesn't beat contenders. In fact the first time he did was this year v. Murray at Wimbledon, and Murray's contender status at Wimbledon remains conjecture at this point. No one knows whether Murray will prove to be even a Henman type there. Could he? Sure. But we don't know yet. As far as Roddick goes at the US Open, he has results in the form of rounds reached, however the only top ten ranked/seeded player he's posted wins over was Ferrero at #3 in the '03 final and Berdych at #9 in a retirement in '07. In '97 it's likely that Roddick gets to the final if given Rusedski's draw. Unlikely he beats Rafter who had come through AA and then Chang to reach that final in the first place. In '98 if Roddick had Flipper's draw would it would set up pretty well for him provided he got past Henman would be a 50/50 prop, Thomas Johansson then Moya. He may final there but IMO he wouldn't beat Rafter who had come through Sampras, even an injured one. So out of the two I would say Roddick would be fairly assured of reaching one final in '97 and was no lock for '98. Unlikely he gets past a prime Rafter in those finals however.

Inserted in the other finalist's spot a strong case for one Final but IMO no Majors at this point, anywhere else in those draws he's no lock for a QF appearance.

'99 US Open? Forget it. Roddick was not going to beat a prime AA and he likely wasn't beating Martin in '99 who went QF, QF and Final at the AO, Wimbledon and US Open that year. Martin was 1-1 vs. Roddick on h/c in '03 and '04 when Roddick was reaching #1, and Martin was had slid and was in his last two years on tour. From '94 to '01 Martin faced Sampras or Agassi 11 times at Majors going 2-9. Roddick isn't reaching this final unless Martin pulls a Malavai Washington Wimbledon SF which was already years behind him.

The AO? This is Roddick's second worst surface.

'96 AO, you really need to re-check Becker's second half of '95 through the spring of '96 and Chang's v. big servers. Put him in Chang's spot it's still unlikely he gets past AA. So no.

'98 AO likely finalist opposite Korda but that final is a crap shoot, but maybe Roddick can take him out. Korda was one match win away from #1 and better than Kohlschrieber, Bagdhatis and Schuettler. Korda also didn't flinch v. big servers. Not a lock for Roddick by any stretch.

'99 This is YK's 2nd best surface. After Agassi and Sampras he was likely the 3rd best performer at the AO from '94 on. Between '94 to 2000 he played the AO 5 times losing to Sampras in '94, Agassi in '95, Becker in '96, winning it in '99 and losing to Agassi again in 2000. That's a title and four losses to the champion each of those five years. In a similar time frame Roddick has lost to Schuettler, Bagdhatis and Kohlschrieber at the AO. Again not a Roddick lock by any stretch.

Realistically Roddick would have likely reached 2 finals and perhaps a third. He was not winning every one of those three and just as plausible could have have lost all of them. IMO Roddick's in the nineties would have looked like and fallen somewhere between a Todd Martin and if things broke just right a YK, a very, very high quality player but not an event in/event out Major threat.

5

dragonfire
08-11-2009, 10:18 AM
1990 US Open? His serve was better than Sampras's? How about absolutely every other element of Sampras's game? No chance, not if you are correlating his 2009 to 1999, and working backward. The premise being being what? Roddick's peak was a full 10 years in length. Forget 1990 for Roddick.

'97 and '98 US Opens. Highly unlikely if he were coming from the other half of Rafter's draw. Henman remained a tick better than Roddick in their h2h and Rafter was a tick better than Henman throughout and rarely blinked in a big spot from '97 through 2001. As close to a lock as one could get. Overall, and this remains a theme throughout Roddick's career, even taking Federer out of it, Roddick doesn't beat contenders. In fact the first time he did was this year v. Murray, whose contender status at Wimbledon remains conjecture at this point. No one knows whether Murray will prove to be even a Henman type there. Could he? Sure. But we don't know yet. As far as Roddick goes at the US Open, he has results in the form of rounds reached, however the only top ten ranked/seeded player he's posted a win over was Ferrero at #3 in the '03 final and Berdych at #9 in a retirement in '07. In '97 it's likely that Roddic gets to the final with Rusedski's draw. Unlikely he beats Rafter who had come through AA and then Chang to reach that final in the first place. In '98 if Roddick had Flipper's draw would it would set up pretty well for him provided he got past Henman would be a 50/50 prop, Thomas Johansson then Moya. He may final there but IMO he wouldn't beat Rafter who had come through Agassi and Chang to reach. So out of the two I would say Roddick would be fairly assured of reaching one final in '97 and was no lock for '98. Unlikely he gets past a prime Rafter in those finals however.

Inserted the other finalists spot a strong case for on Final and no Majors at this point, anywhere else in those draws he's no lock for a QF appearance.

'99 US Open? Forget it. Roddick was not going to beat a prime AA and he likely wasn't beating Martin in '99 who went QF, QF and Final at the AO, Wimbledon and US Open that year. Martin was 1-1 vs. Roddick on h/c in '03 and '04 when Roddick was reaching #1, and Martin was had slid and was in his last two years on tour. From '94 to '01 Martin faced Sampras or Agassi 11 times at Majors going 2-9. Roddick isn't reaching this final unless Martin pulls a Malavai Washington Wimbledon SF which was already years behind him.

The AO? This is Roddick's second worst surface.

'96 AO, you really need to re-check Becker's second half of '95 through the spring of '96 and Chang's v. big servers. Put him in Chang's spot it's still unlikely he gets past AA. So no.

'98 AO likely finalist opposite Korda but that final is a crap shoot, but maybe Roddick can take him out. Korda was one match win away from #1 and better than Kohlschrieber, Bagdhatis and Schuettler. Korda also didn't flinch v. big servers. Not a lock for Roddick by any stretch.

'99 This is YK's 2nd best surface. After Agassi and Sampras he was likely the 3rd best performer at the AO from '94 on. Between '94 to 2000 he played the AO 5 times losing to Sampras in '94, Agassi in '95, Becker in '96, winning it in '99 and losing to Agassi again in 2000. That's a title and four losses to the champion each of those five years. In a similar time frame Roddick has lost to Schuettler, Bagdhatis and Kohlschrieber at the AO. Again not a Roddick lock by any stretch.

Realistically Roddick would have likely reached 2 finals and perhaps a third. He was not winning every one of those three and just as plausible could have have lost all of them. IMO Roddick's in the nineties would have looked far more fallen somewhere between a Todd Martin and if things broke just right a YK, a very, very high quality player but not an event in/event out Major threat.

5

you can't prove any of this

FiveO
08-11-2009, 10:39 AM
you can't prove any of this

Alot of what is in my post is in the record already, but no, the proposed match-up/outcomes can't be "proven", just like a conclusion supposing Roddick would amass a higher Major count in the '90's can't, which is the opinion I was addressing.

5

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 11:18 AM
1990 US Open? His serve was better than Sampras's? If you say so. How about absolutely every other element of Sampras's game? No chance, not if you are correlating his 2009 to 1999, and working backward. What's the thought here, Roddick's peak was a full 10 years in length. You have to go back and look at Roddick's early results at the same age. Forget 1990 for Roddick.

'97 and '98 US Opens. Highly unlikely if he were coming from the other half of Rafter's draw. Henman remained a tick better than Roddick in their h2h and Rafter was a tick better than Henman throughout and rarely blinked in a big spot from '97 through 2001. As close to a lock as one could get. Overall, and this remains a theme throughout Roddick's career, even taking Federer out of it, Roddick doesn't beat contenders. In fact the first time he did was this year v. Murray at Wimbledon, and Murray's contender status at Wimbledon remains conjecture at this point. No one knows whether Murray will prove to be even a Henman type there. Could he? Sure. But we don't know yet. As far as Roddick goes at the US Open, he has results in the form of rounds reached, however the only top ten ranked/seeded player he's posted wins over was Ferrero at #3 in the '03 final and Berdych at #9 in a retirement in '07. In '97 it's likely that Roddick gets to the final if given Rusedski's draw. Unlikely he beats Rafter who had come through AA and then Chang to reach that final in the first place. In '98 if Roddick had Flipper's draw would it would set up pretty well for him provided he got past Henman would be a 50/50 prop, Thomas Johansson then Moya. He may final there but IMO he wouldn't beat Rafter who had come through Sampras, even an injured one. So out of the two I would say Roddick would be fairly assured of reaching one final in '97 and was no lock for '98. Unlikely he gets past a prime Rafter in those finals however.

Inserted in the other finalist's spot a strong case for one Final but IMO no Majors at this point, anywhere else in those draws he's no lock for a QF appearance.

'99 US Open? Forget it. Roddick was not going to beat a prime AA and he likely wasn't beating Martin in '99 who went QF, QF and Final at the AO, Wimbledon and US Open that year. Martin was 1-1 vs. Roddick on h/c in '03 and '04 when Roddick was reaching #1, and Martin was had slid and was in his last two years on tour. From '94 to '01 Martin faced Sampras or Agassi 11 times at Majors going 2-9. Roddick isn't reaching this final unless Martin pulls a Malavai Washington Wimbledon SF which was already years behind him.

The AO? This is Roddick's second worst surface.

'96 AO, you really need to re-check Becker's second half of '95 through the spring of '96 and Chang's v. big servers. Put him in Chang's spot it's still unlikely he gets past AA. So no.

'98 AO likely finalist opposite Korda but that final is a crap shoot, but maybe Roddick can take him out. Korda was one match win away from #1 and better than Kohlschrieber, Bagdhatis and Schuettler. Korda also didn't flinch v. big servers. Not a lock for Roddick by any stretch.

'99 This is YK's 2nd best surface. After Agassi and Sampras he was likely the 3rd best performer at the AO from '94 on. Between '94 to 2000 he played the AO 5 times losing to Sampras in '94, Agassi in '95, Becker in '96, winning it in '99 and losing to Agassi again in 2000. That's a title and four losses to the champion each of those five years. In a similar time frame Roddick has lost to Schuettler, Bagdhatis and Kohlschrieber at the AO. Again not a Roddick lock by any stretch.

Realistically Roddick would have likely reached 2 finals and perhaps a third. He was not winning every one of those three and just as plausible could have have lost all of them. IMO Roddick's in the nineties would have looked like and fallen somewhere between a Todd Martin and if things broke just right a YK, a very, very high quality player but not an event in/event out Major threat.

5



Bravo... Great Post and way to keep into perspective.. This idea where Roddick would be a multi slam winner in any other era that doesnt contain Fed is a bit of joke.

Roddick is good but was never THAT GOOD, to where we could just automatically rack slams up for him in a different era

Joseph L. Barrow
08-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Roddick is obviously not mentally weak. He has time and time again come back and made another run towards the top just when prognosticators were expecting him to fade into oblivion, and staunchly refuses to give up on his quest for a second Slam no matter how many discouraging batterings he receives from a certain demi-god-esque Swiss player. He has won many close, high-pressure matches (see the Hewitt and Murray encounters this last Wimbledon for recent reference) in which the deciding factor was his superior play at the most crucial stages.

He has more than his share of come-from-behind victories to his credit as well. He wins after saving match point on at least a once-a-year basis- Haas this year in Madrid, Schwank last year at Legg Mason, Mahut at the '07 Queen's Club, Arthurs at '06 Memphis, Ferrer at '05 Paris, Haas and Ljubicic at the '04 Olympics and Indianapolis,, Nalbandian and Aynaoui at the '03 US and Australian Opens, etc. (I didn't remember all of those off the top of my head, but rather scanned through his match record). I imagine there are few, if any, players on the tour who have saved match point to win as many times as Roddick has.

As for the second set tiebreak at Wimbledon, the shot Roddick missed at 6-5 was not an "easy put-away" volley. It was a pretty fast top-spin shot above his head at an angle to the backhand side, and per his account it was further complicated by a timely gust of wind. It was a difficult shot. Roddick's four failed set points in the second-set tiebreak resulted from three excellent shots by Federer and one miss on a difficult high backhand volley by Roddick. A msised opportunity? Yes. A choke? Not really.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Roddick is obviously not mentally weak. He has time and time again come back and made another run towards the top just when prognosticators were expecting him to fade into oblivion, and staunchly refuses to give up on his quest for a second Slam no matter how many discouraging batterings he receives from a certain demi-god-esque Swiss player. He has won many close, high-pressure matches (see the Hewitt and Murray encounters this last Wimbledon for recent reference) in which the deciding factor was his superior play at the most crucial stages.

He has more than his share of come-from-behind victories to his credit as well. He wins after saving match point on at least a once-a-year basis- Haas this year in Madrid, Schwank last year at Legg Mason, Mahut at the '07 Queen's Club, Arthurs at '06 Memphis, Ferrer at '05 Paris, Haas and Ljubicic at the '04 Olympics and Indianapolis,, Nalbandian and Aynaoui at the '03 US and Australian Opens, etc. (I didn't remember all of those off the top of my head, but rather scanned through his match record). I imagine there are few, if any, players on the tour who have saved match point to win as many times as Roddick has.

As for the second set tiebreak at Wimbledon, the shot Roddick missed at 6-5 was not an "easy put-away" volley. It was a pretty fast top-spin shot above his head at an angle to the backhand side, and per his account it was further complicated by a timely gust of wind. It was a difficult shot. Roddick's four failed set points in the second-set tiebreak resulted from three excellent shots by Federer and one miss on a difficult high backhand volley by Roddick. A msised opportunity? Yes. A choke? Not really.



Missed opportunity, Choke.. Call it what u will.. Roddick has had his share against Fed

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Bravo... Great Post and way to keep into perspective.. This idea where Roddick would be a multi slam winner in any other era that doesnt contain Fed is a bit of joke.

Roddick is good but was never THAT GOOD, to where we could just automatically rack slams up for him in a different era



If we shift Roddick's best years back he probably splits slams with Hewitt / Federer 2001-2003. In fact, prime Roddick probably wins the AO that year with his eyes closed, and could give Hewitt a real test at Wimbledon. So yes, if we put Roddick in that "transition era" then he probably is a multi slam winner.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:48 PM
If we shift Roddick's best years back he probably splits slams with Hewitt / Federer 2001-2003. In fact, prime Roddick probably wins the AO that year with his eyes closed, and could give Hewitt a real test at Wimbledon. So yes, if we put Roddick in that "transition era" then he probably is a multi slam winner.



I dunno how we can account for this.. Roddick was destroyed even by 31 year old Sampras. He was beaten pretty consistently by Hewitt at the time.. Hewitt at his peak was a better player than Roddick. And even brokeback Agassi still gave Roddick problems.


I think some of you are given Roddick just a little too much credit. And some will argue that even back in 03, Roddick was a little more of a deadly threat then than he is now, with his "try to grind style". His FH was lethal and serving as huge.. Yet he still only saw one slam for himself.


Some area of his game has improved like his fitness, maybe his BH. But his return of serve is still crap.. His overrall return, still nothing special

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:53 PM
I dunno how we can account for this.. Roddick was destroyed even by 31 year old Sampras. He was beaten pretty consistently by Hewitt at the time.. Hewitt at his peak was a better player than Roddick. And even brokeback Agassi still gave Roddick problems.


I think some of you are given Roddick just a little too much credit. And some will argue that even back in 03, Roddick was a little more of a deadly threat then than he is now, with his "try to grind style". His FH was lethal and serving as huge.. Yet he still only saw one slam for himself.


Some area of his game has improved like his fitness, maybe his BH. But his return of serve is still crap.. His overrall return, still nothing special




2002 he wins the AO with his eyes closed. I don't see anyone in this pitiful tournament actually beating Roddick. That is, assuming we shift back Roddick's prime years abit.


2002 Wimbledon it's close. Dead even H2H with Hewitt.




So yes, if we shifted it back abit than Roddick wins 2002 easily since no one is there essentially (except Safin, Haas, and Johansson, but seriously? Safin left his mind somewhere in the final, and Johansson and Haas are not beating prime Roddick).



Counting his 2003 USO victory than Roddick is a multi slam champion. Easy. I do like how you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that Roddick was injured in his match against Sampras in 2002. I guess if you continue to do so, than Sampras was not injured when he played Jaime Ygaza.

Wolland
08-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Roddick is definitely not mentally weak. I mean, even in the match against Del Potro he showed some mental strength by coming back from 6-3 in the tie break. Yes, he did lose this match, but Del Potro was very lucky in the tie break. That forehand miss-hit which acted like a drop shot is a shot you hit once in a million years.

Commando Tennis Shorts
08-12-2009, 01:20 AM
I'm sure this has already been said, but there are only two players who have stayed in the top 10 over the past 7 years----one's name is Federer...the other is Roddick.

Nothing says mental toughness like consistency, and that's the truth---it's a goddamn shame the haters can't see that...