PDA

View Full Version : Andy Roddick - 2010 Australian Open Champ If...


tvp900
10-08-2009, 05:33 PM
I think if Roddick were to win any other slam, he needs to improve his break point conversion percentage and beef up his return of serve in both percentage and placement. Plus, maybe he needs to increase his diversity on first and second serves. Traditionally, his first serve is either a huge flat one down the T or a slice out wide, while his second serve is almost always a kicker to the backhand side. Personally, I think the body serve is always a good choice for Roddick as nobody wants a ball coming upwards of 140 mph at their chest.

Now, aside from there being no Federer, Nadal, or Del potro, what does he need to improve in the offseason this year in order to win the AO in January?

flyinghippos101
10-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Sorry but if Roddick's going to win another slam, it will be at wimbledon. Of course pending Federer and Nadal's retirement

MajinX
10-08-2009, 05:58 PM
Sorry but if Roddick's going to win another slam, it will be at wimbledon. Of course pending Federer and Nadal's retirement

its hard to say that after he gave federer his hardest grandslam win in his career so far. I think Nadal vs Roddick at wimbledon would be very interesting altho nadal's game is good against roddicks.

Toxicmilk
10-08-2009, 06:02 PM
Andy Roddick would win the _____ GS in 2010 if he can beat Federer =D

Conquistador
10-08-2009, 06:05 PM
Roger Federer is scheduled to play in that event. Just to let you know.

wyutani
10-08-2009, 06:09 PM
IF there is no fed.

SuperDuy
10-08-2009, 06:10 PM
Obviusly it a GS>

veroniquem
10-08-2009, 06:20 PM
If the current top 5 retires :???:

Toxicmilk
10-08-2009, 06:23 PM
If the current top 5 retires :???:

Donald Young would prob become goat first =/

MichaelNadal
10-08-2009, 06:23 PM
Andy's best chance was Wimby this year, its not going to happen.

IvanAndreevich
10-08-2009, 07:46 PM
Roddick's never been past the semis in Australia. Then again, that's because of his Federer problem.

edmondsm
10-08-2009, 10:16 PM
I hate it, but I think Roddick's will might have finally been broken this year. He was right there at Wimbledon, it was on his racquet, he blew it. Then John Isner finished him off. He's rebounded so many times, and always come up short. It's sad.

norbac
10-08-2009, 10:23 PM
I hate it, but I think Roddick's will might have finally been broken this year. He was right there at Wimbledon, it was on his racquet, he blew it. Then John Isner finished him off. He's rebounded so many times, and always come up short. It's sad.

Sadly, I think you may just be right...it would be amazing if he came back strong next season though(in the Slams I mean)....

federerfanatic
10-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Not a chance. Federer, Del Potro, and Murray are all too good for him on a hard court. Nadal if healthy probably is too. He has done well vs Djokovic this year but Djokovic is still the better player right now. There are too many guys above him, too many big threats to win a hard court slam now for him to ever do it. If he has any shot it is Wimbledon but I dont see it happening even there for him. Sadly he has probably won his only slam already, this years Wimbledon was his best last shot of another.

ceberus
10-08-2009, 11:22 PM
He missed it at Wimbledon this year. It's over for him.

tennis_hand
10-09-2009, 12:06 AM
his only chance to win is to conserve his energy until Fed is old or retired.

so, I think, he should retire now and come back after 2012.

egn
10-09-2009, 07:38 AM
If the current top 5 retires :???:

Murray is on Fed's and Del Po's side.
Murray beats Del Po in the quarters and Fed in the semis.
Nadal loses early.
Roddick gets Djoker on a hot Aussie day.
Roddick beats Djoker and then beats Murray the choke artist.

I think that is the only reasonable way that Roddick can win it. He has a hex on Djokovic right now and if any of the top 5 is to blow it in a final it has to be Murray. Del Po has gotten over the nerves since that beatdown Fed handed him at the AO last year and his power game could cause old Roddick some issues. The Fed and Nadal problems are obvious. Murray it all depends on if he can make it to the final and then basically Roddick has to play one real match.

vandre
10-09-2009, 07:42 AM
I hate it, but I think Roddick's will might have finally been broken this year. He was right there at Wimbledon, it was on his racquet, he blew it. Then John Isner finished him off. He's rebounded so many times, and always come up short. It's sad.

this. 10 char

its all right there in my sig.

NamRanger
10-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Prediction for Roddick were way worse before this season. Most said he wouldn't have made a SF. Let's actually wait and see how he plays in the last few major tournaments before making any judgments people.



A. Roddick needs to hit bigger off the forehand still. Not all out on every shot, but he needs a shot to follow up his serve, as his serve is getting neutralized too often.

B. Roddick needs to continue to improve his backhand and improve his return of serve. Needs to take some bigger cuts on the ball.

C. Roddick needs to stop playing passive and just play more aggressive tennis. It is one thing to be patient; it is another to be passive and allow your opponent to take over.

tvp900
10-09-2009, 05:18 PM
Prediction for Roddick were way worse before this season. Most said he wouldn't have made a SF. Let's actually wait and see how he plays in the last few major tournaments before making any judgments people.



A. Roddick needs to hit bigger off the forehand still. Not all out on every shot, but he needs a shot to follow up his serve, as his serve is getting neutralized too often.

B. Roddick needs to continue to improve his backhand and improve his return of serve. Needs to take some bigger cuts on the ball.

C. Roddick needs to stop playing passive and just play more aggressive tennis. It is one thing to be patient; it is another to be passive and allow your opponent to take over.

I totally agree with 'C'. I like that he's learning patience, but don't like that he's falling asleep at the baseline.

kishnabe
10-10-2009, 05:49 AM
Well you never know what going to happen. But i would prefer roddick to win wimbledon, since it was his dream when watching that show "breakfast with wimbledon". Australian maybe 2011 since every odd year he makes the semi's. Frech Open only if he get's a year like Mac in 1984. US open is reasonable, i would say 2011 us open.

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 06:00 AM
Seeing as it's Roddick's lifelong dream to win wimbledon, i hope he gets it. Hopefully it's not a dream that won't get fulfilled. Hopefully Federer retires at the end of the year.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-10-2009, 06:01 AM
I think he has more chance at USO or Wimby. But that's difficult and perhaps impossible, too, and time is working against him.

Besides, he plays too much like a pusher these days. In some moments, honestly, he seems like the worst pusher on tour, way above Murray.

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 06:06 AM
I think he has more chance at USO or Wimby. But that's difficult and perhaps impossible, too, and time is working against him.

Besides, he plays too much like a pusher these days. In some moments, honestly, he seems like the worst pusher on tour, way above Murray.

The difference between roddick and murray is that roddick does have 2 huge weapons (serve & forehand) but doesn't use one of them. Murray HAS to push because he has no big weapons.

Agree with what your saying at the top part though, but i would say he's a contender for AO. Obviously the top 5 are firm favourites, but A-rod can cause an upset aswell.

Cyan
10-10-2009, 06:31 AM
His best chance is at Wimbledon in the future. Too many good players on HC these days...

tyro
10-10-2009, 07:30 AM
All good points, especially about the need to take a few more chances with his forehand. His return game looked much better at Wimby this year. He'd need to keep that up.

And someone else would have to take out Fed. I guess Roddick can hope that Fed's motivation will falter just a bit now that he's in the record books. Not likely, but not out of the question, either.

--Tyro

http://tenniswire.wordpress.com

DownTheLine
10-10-2009, 07:35 AM
its hard to say that after he gave federer his hardest grandslam win in his career so far. I think Nadal vs Roddick at wimbledon would be very interesting altho nadal's game is good against roddicks.

It was the longest not the hardest.

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 09:04 AM
All good points, especially about the need to take a few more chances with his forehand. His return game looked much better at Wimby this year. He'd need to keep that up.

And someone else would have to take out Fed. I guess Roddick can hope that Fed's motivation will falter just a bit now that he's in the record books. Not likely, but not out of the question, either.

--Tyro

http://tenniswire.wordpress.com

You're forgetting that roddick has come the closest bar nadal from beating Federer at Wimbledon, and Roddick should have won in 4 sets at the very least. If anyone can beat federer on grass besides nadal, it's roddick. Murray/djokovic fans will deny this, but it's true.

SuperDuy
10-10-2009, 10:19 AM
Andy will win the AO and Wimbledon!

jamesblakefan#1
10-10-2009, 10:39 AM
Man this was so long ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8M0Qi5Jt2s

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 10:42 AM
Man this was so long ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8M0Qi5Jt2s

Well at least he got there and maxed out his potential. I for one didn't see him making a slam QTF this year. Turns out i was wrong.

Do you think he overachieved?

jamesblakefan#1
10-10-2009, 10:46 AM
Well at least he got there and maxed out his potential. I for one didn't see him making a slam QTF this year. Turns out i was wrong.

Do you think he overachieved?

I think he was overhyped by the media, who were quick to peg him as the next Sampras/Agassi and win as many slams as those guys did. You can see part of that in that piece.

But he's done all he could with Federer around. He's just not better than Fed. But in any era I don't see him winning more than 3 slams, so on that end...he's not the huge underachiever some peg him out to be. He's definitely a top 5 player of this decade, behind Fed, Nadal, and Hewitt.

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 10:52 AM
I think he was overhyped by the media, who were quick to peg him as the next Sampras/Agassi and win as many slams as those guys did. You can see part of that in that piece.

But he's done all he could with Federer around. He's just not better than Fed. But in any era I don't see him winning more than 3 slams, so on that end...he's not the huge underachiever some peg him out to be. He's definitely a top 5 player of this decade, behind Fed, Nadal, and Hewitt.

Maybe more than 3 slams. I feel Safin,Hewitt and Roddick would be equal on slams right now if Federer wasn't around.

But to be honest, Roddick can't blame Federer for his 'underachieving'. He's had his chances against federer quite a few times in slams. He should have won wimbledon 04 and 09, but just failed, had chances in the 3rd set at US open 2006. IMO Roddick was/is good enough to take Federer out.

As for Hewitt, i think he was the 'lucky' guy out of everyone - know what i mean.

P_Agony
10-10-2009, 10:58 AM
If the current top 5 retires :???:

Right, because Roddick cannot beat Murray and Djokovic. He was just lucky to beat Murray in the Wimbly SF and was just lucky to beat Djokovic 3 times this year.

flying24
10-10-2009, 12:43 PM
Maybe more than 3 slams. I feel Safin,Hewitt and Roddick would be equal on slams right now if Federer wasn't around.

But to be honest, Roddick can't blame Federer for his 'underachieving'. He's had his chances against federer quite a few times in slams. He should have won wimbledon 04 and 09, but just failed, had chances in the 3rd set at US open 2006. IMO Roddick was/is good enough to take Federer out.

As for Hewitt, i think he was the 'lucky' guy out of everyone - know what i mean.

If you did take Federer out then it indeed would be an unusually weak era all things considered. What JBF said is still correct, put him in any other era, not taking out such and such player who is there, and he doesnt win more than 3 slams in any (less in quite a few of them).

As for the 2006 U.S Open final Federer ended that match with over double the winners of Roddick despite that Roddick was playing well. Federer squandered more break points in the 3rd set than did Rodidck and still won it. Roddick was lucky if anything to make it as close as he did.

flying24
10-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Right, because Roddick cannot beat Murray and Djokovic. He was just lucky to beat Murray in the Wimbly SF and was just lucky to beat Djokovic 3 times this year.

Grass is probably the only surface he can beat Murray. I would never put my money on Roddick vs Murray on a hard court at any point in the future, including even in a slam. This thead is about the Australian Open. Djokovic you have a point on, however if Djokovic finds his best form again grass would probably be the only surface Roddick would come out on top.

World Beater
10-10-2009, 05:32 PM
If you did take Federer out then it indeed would be an unusually weak era all things considered. What JBF said is still correct, put him in any other era, not taking out such and such player who is there, and he doesnt win more than 3 slams in any (less in quite a few of them).

As for the 2006 U.S Open final Federer ended that match with over double the winners of Roddick despite that Roddick was playing well. Federer squandered more break points in the 3rd set than did Rodidck and still won it. Roddick was lucky if anything to make it as close as he did.

kind of weird for you to say that.

everyone from borg to becker were incredibly impressed with roddick when he first came out.

it wasn't just the media, but past players were impressed with his power game.

also, the whole weak era would not make any sense because even in 2003, it was considered an incredibly strong era - sampras himself thought players were getting too good and that things are too deep. mcenroe included.

who could fault them? roddick, federer and ferrero were all formidable in 2003.

then federer just takes the whole game to new level and his detractors/critics cite the weak era argument - revisionist history, if you ask me.

tvp900
10-11-2009, 07:06 AM
kind of weird for you to say that.

everyone from borg to becker were incredibly impressed with roddick when he first came out.

it wasn't just the media, but past players were impressed with his power game.

also, the whole weak era would not make any sense because even in 2003, it was considered an incredibly strong era - sampras himself thought players were getting too good and that things are too deep. mcenroe included.

who could fault them? roddick, federer and ferrero were all formidable in 2003.

then federer just takes the whole game to new level and his detractors/critics cite the weak era argument - revisionist history, if you ask me.

I remember a time when everyone thought the future of men's tennis was gonna be about Roddick Ferrero and Federer.
Roddick - the big server with the big forehand, best suited to grass
Ferrero - the ultimate grinder, best suited to clay
Federer - the all-round player, at the time, suited to grass and hard courts

Jason Vorhees
10-11-2009, 08:35 AM
I remember a time when everyone thought the future of men's tennis was gonna be about Roddick Ferrero and Federer.
Roddick - the big server with the big forehand, best suited to grass
Ferrero - the ultimate grinder, best suited to clay
Federer - the all-round player, at the time, suited to grass and hard courts

Ferrero faded away
We know what happened to Fed & Andy

NamRanger
10-12-2009, 05:34 AM
Grass is probably the only surface he can beat Murray. I would never put my money on Roddick vs Murray on a hard court at any point in the future, including even in a slam. This thead is about the Australian Open. Djokovic you have a point on, however if Djokovic finds his best form again grass would probably be the only surface Roddick would come out on top.




Djokovic even playing at his very best would have a tough time beating Roddick. Early 2008 when Djokovic was playing his best tennis, lost to Andy Roddick at Dubai on a fast court. It was a close match, but it's not like Roddick's going to roll over. His patient and passive game happens to work very well against Djokovic because he doesn't give him any angles, which makes Djokovic go for too much and make errors.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 06:06 AM
Djokovic even playing at his very best would have a tough time beating Roddick. Early 2008 when Djokovic was playing his best tennis, lost to Andy Roddick at Dubai on a fast court. It was a close match, but it's not like Roddick's going to roll over. His patient and passive game happens to work very well against Djokovic because he doesn't give him any angles, which makes Djokovic go for too much and make errors.

Dubai is a lightning fast court the likes of which almost dont even exist on tour any longer, let alone any of the 4 slam surfaces.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 06:24 AM
Dubai is a lightning fast court the likes of which almost dont even exist on tour any longer, let alone any of the 4 slam surfaces.
Dubai isn't much faster than the US Open and Cincinatti.

grafselesfan
10-12-2009, 06:25 AM
Dubai isn't much faster than the US Open and Cincinatti.

Sure, the U.S Open in 1997 maybe. Dont even get me started on Cincinnati. A guy like Roddick is actually one of the unlucky ones with the slowing of surfaces today. I am not a Roddick fan with his serve he would he would be an even tougher player under the old court conditions, particularly amongst the field of baseline specialists of today.

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 06:31 AM
Sure, the U.S Open in 1997 maybe. Dont even get me started on Cincinnati.
The surfaces of Dubai and Cincinnati are similiar in speed.

Obviously the air is different in Dubai (not just because it's indoor), and the balls might be too.

NamRanger
10-12-2009, 06:40 AM
Dubai is a lightning fast court the likes of which almost dont even exist on tour any longer, let alone any of the 4 slam surfaces.


That's true, but Djokovic was no slouch that tournament. Both he and Roddick were serving out of trees (Roddick in particular, who served 13 aces against Nadal in one set) that tournament up to that point.



I think when both play their best tennis, it's a good match because they are fairly even matched. Djokovic struggles a little bit on the forehand return, which Roddick abuses alot, while Roddick can't stand toe to toe with Djokovic in a baseline rally.



It's not like Djokovic can roll over Roddick so easily as people think.