PDA

View Full Version : Roddick (09) Vs Nadal (08) Wimbledon, Who Wins?


Crispix
10-28-2009, 03:28 AM
Now it might seem like a walkover by Nadal, but think about it. It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.

So who do you think, would win if they matched up?

My guess is Roddick in 4

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 03:41 AM
Roddick in 3. Not even Murray and Federer could read roddick's serve and Nadal doesn't return half as well. Nadal would be lucky to get 1 Break point on Roddick's serve.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 04:04 AM
Roddick in 3. Not even Murray and Federer could read roddick's serve and Nadal doesn't return half as well. Nadal would be lucky to get 1 Break point on Roddick's serve.

That's quite misleading, Murray and Nadal are the best returners on tour (along with Davydenko). Federer is the one who has an average return percentage. Saying that Nadal would be lucky to break Roddick once is mind blowing. Roddick wouldn't be able to break Nadal often, his ROS is probably the worst in the top 10.

aphex
10-28-2009, 04:10 AM
roddick in 3 or 4----federer was playing one of his worst grass-court matches for the first 2 sets in '08

TheMusicLover
10-28-2009, 04:12 AM
THAT Roddick would surely have won the match. Bad luck for him to find him playing 'someone else' in that final...

Steve132
10-28-2009, 04:17 AM
Roddick, probably in four sets.

P_Agony
10-28-2009, 04:35 AM
This is one question I truly have no opinion on. Both Roddick in 2009 and Nadal in 2008 were in the forms of their life, and Roddick would probably not have choked that 2nd set TB to Nadal like he did for Fed. Then again, Federer choked the 2nd set in 2008 to Nadal, so it's a matchup thing. I don't know who would have won, but I bet it would have gone the distance.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 05:28 AM
That's quite misleading, Murray and Nadal are the best returners on tour (along with Davydenko). Federer is the one who has an average return percentage. Saying that Nadal would be lucky to break Roddick once is mind blowing. Roddick wouldn't be able to break Nadal often, his ROS is probably the worst in the top 10.

No, really, it isn't misleading. Federer is known for blocking Roddick's serve back. If i had roddick's serve - i know which returner i would prefer to be serving too, and it wouldn't be Federer. Nadal's return isn't special, it's overrated.

No it is not mind blowing because roddick beat nadal in dubai in 2008 (his worst year ever) without getting broken. Wimbledon is faster and roddick was serving better.

Yes, roddick's ROS is the weakest in the top 10, but guess what - nadal is the worst server in the top 10 so it all balances out nicely for roddick.

coloskier
10-28-2009, 05:46 AM
That's quite misleading, Murray and Nadal are the best returners on tour (along with Davydenko). Federer is the one who has an average return percentage. Saying that Nadal would be lucky to break Roddick once is mind blowing. Roddick wouldn't be able to break Nadal often, his ROS is probably the worst in the top 10.

Nadal one of the best returners on tour???????? I'll agree with Murray, but definitely not Nadal. He stands too far back, and anyone who has a good 2nd shot approach gives him trouble on a faster court. Besides, Roddick's best serves are wide on the deuce court and up the T on the ad court, which go directly into Nadal's weaker side. It's amazing how they never seem to meet in a fast court GS.

namelessone
10-28-2009, 05:48 AM
I understand Federer having mono in January-February at AO(he didn't look ok physically to me) but come on,you expect me to believe mono was still affecting him 5 months later? In a tournament in which he didn't drop a set to the final? Hell,he dropped one set in WB 09' so one could presumbaly say that Fed from WB 09' played worse than in WB 08'?

Federer played bad because Nadal made him play bad,just like in a lot of their matches. It's a match-up thing. Look,Nadal pushed Fed to 4 sets in 06' when Nadal had very few grass matches under his belt(fed being three times champ at the time) and to 5 in 07'. Clearly Nadal was doing something right on grass against the field and Fed. I think Federer played very good tennis both in 08' and 09'. In the first he recovered being 2 sets down and barely lost that match against a in-form Nadal and he constantly had to push roddick back in 09' to win it. In short,in 08' his groundstrokes worked while his serve didn't and in 09' the opposite happened. He lost in 08' because Nadal was tougher in the key moments than Roddick was. No way was roddick recovering against Fed after choking big time in the 4th tie like Rafa did. But it was the best I have seen Roddick play for a LOOONNGGGG time against Roger.

Regarding the Rafa-Roddick matchup on grass: It is tight but I still say Rafa takes it. He is mentally stronger and while Roddick has improved big time on his groundstrokes(especially BH),his approaches are still crap(and Nadal is a great passer) and he still relies a lot on his serve. If Nadal is playing his normal game and Roddick plays out of this world I say Rafa wins in 5. If Roddick has a bad serve day,Nadal takes it in 3 or 4. Nadal has to have a really bad day to lose to Roddick on grass because Nadal is simply better off the ground and even improved Roddick can't handle that on grass,at least IMO. To win Roddick would need to serve out of this world and somehow attack Nadal's serve,which is weak,but kicks up better on grass than HC and constantly push Nadal off the ground. He would need to serve great,take the ball early to hinder Nadal's shotmaking ability and stay clutch in the tough moments. A pretty tall order if you ask me. And there is another factor to Roddick's great WB 09' showing against Fed. The h2h,which really motivated Roddick to finally win against his nemesis,Federer. It was visible in his attitude. He basically said the whole match "I am not losing to this guy AGAIN and at Wimbledon AGAIN" and he almost pulled through. The roddick of the past would have withered away after losing the second set against Fed but this one soldiered on. Somehow I think he would lack that motivation against Rafa.

Badger
10-28-2009, 05:51 AM
Probably Roddick. But it's hard to say.

ceberus
10-28-2009, 05:54 AM
Most likely Roddick, in 4-5 sets

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 06:08 AM
If we talking a wimbeldon a final, than Rafa takes this.. Roddick has proven time and time again to have serious nerve problems in finals and if Nadal could get the serve of Roddick's back in play that would be more than enough to bully Roddick from the baseline.

Hell Fed didnt look good in the final at all and still manage to squeak out the win over Roddick and Nadal Wimbeldon 08 is better than Fed 09 Wimbeldon.

To think career final choker A-Rod would outdo mentally physically peak Nadal at the heigth of his career is a bit crazy.

feetofclay
10-28-2009, 06:12 AM
In my opinion Nadal would have won, Nadal has beaten Roddick on all surfaces, including Queens, which is a faster grass surface than Wimbledon.

dropshot winner
10-28-2009, 06:18 AM
In my opinion Nadal would have won, Nadal has beaten Roddick on all surfaces, including Queens, which is a faster grass surface than Wimbledon.

Tipsarevic also beat Roddick in 2008 on grass, in Wimbledon no less.

You can't compare Roddick's 2009 form on grass to the year before.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 06:22 AM
Tipsarevic also beat Roddick in 2008 on grass, in Wimbledon no less.

You can't compare Roddick's 2009 form on grass to the year before.

I didn't agree with you on the other thread, but i agree with what you are saying. Besides, pime Nadal beat Roddick at his worst and injured.

TMF
10-28-2009, 06:29 AM
I say Roddick mainly b/c his 1st serve % was extremely high, especially in the 1st 2 sets(79%). It took Roger to serve 50 aces to beat him, and i don't think Nadal's serve would ever trouble Roddick like the way Federer did.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 06:31 AM
I say Roddick mainly b/c his 1st serve % was extremely high, especially in the 1st 2 sets(79%). It took Roger to serve 50 aces to beat him, and i don't think Nadal's serve would ever trouble Roddick like the way Federer did.

Lets not forget that Federer is a demon for returining roddick's serve - Federer did well to break roddick that day. Nadal would be ruderless against roddick's serve.

zagor
10-28-2009, 06:55 AM
Now it might seem like a walkover by Nadal, but think about it. It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.

So who do you think, would win if they matched up?

My guess is Roddick in 4

Lol,Fed was fine come Wimbledon last year,he didn't lose a set until the final so let's drop the excuses.

It's really hard to say,the way Roddick played at Wimbledon this year was a bit remiscent of Goran in 2001,he was serving and playing out of his mind,some of the best tennis I've ever seen from Roddick.Then again Nadal looked like a man on the mission at Wimbledon last year,was killing people off ground and his serve was actually a weapon throghout the tourney(which isn't usual for him).I'll go with Nadal in 5.

zagor
10-28-2009, 07:17 AM
I understand Federer having mono in January-February at AO(he didn't look ok physically to me) but come on,you expect me to believe mono was still affecting him 5 months later? In a tournament in which he didn't drop a set to the final? Hell,he dropped one set in WB 09' so one could presumbaly say that Fed from WB 09' played worse than in WB 08'?

Federer played bad because Nadal made him play bad,just like in a lot of their matches. It's a match-up thing. Look,Nadal pushed Fed to 4 sets in 06' when Nadal had very few grass matches under his belt(fed being three times champ at the time) and to 5 in 07'. Clearly Nadal was doing something right on grass against the field and Fed. I think Federer played very good tennis both in 08' and 09'. In the first he recovered being 2 sets down and barely lost that match against a in-form Nadal and he constantly had to push roddick back in 09' to win it. In short,in 08' his groundstrokes worked while his serve didn't and in 09' the opposite happened. He lost in 08' because Nadal was tougher in the key moments than Roddick was. No way was roddick recovering against Fed after choking big time in the 4th tie like Rafa did. But it was the best I have seen Roddick play for a LOOONNGGGG time against Roger.

Regarding the Rafa-Roddick matchup on grass: It is tight but I still say Rafa takes it. He is mentally stronger and while Roddick has improved big time on his groundstrokes(especially BH),his approaches are still crap(and Nadal is a great passer) and he still relies a lot on his serve. If Nadal is playing his normal game and Roddick plays out of this world I say Rafa wins in 5. If Roddick has a bad serve day,Nadal takes it in 3 or 4. Nadal has to have a really bad day to lose to Roddick on grass because Nadal is simply better off the ground and even improved Roddick can't handle that on grass,at least IMO. To win Roddick would need to serve out of this world and somehow attack Nadal's serve,which is weak,but kicks up better on grass than HC and constantly push Nadal off the ground. He would need to serve great,take the ball early to hinder Nadal's shotmaking ability and stay clutch in the tough moments. A pretty tall order if you ask me. And there is another factor to Roddick's great WB 09' showing against Fed. The h2h,which really motivated Roddick to finally win against his nemesis,Federer. It was visible in his attitude. He basically said the whole match "I am not losing to this guy AGAIN and at Wimbledon AGAIN" and he almost pulled through. The roddick of the past would have withered away after losing the second set against Fed but this one soldiered on. Somehow I think he would lack that motivation against Rafa.

So when Fed plays bad against Nadal it's solely because of Nadal but when Nadal plays bad/loses it's because he's exhausted/has injuried knees/injuried tummy/played with pain for the last 5 months/because of altitude etc. good to know.

Although I agree that mono excuse for Wimbledon is crap and doesn't hold water in the slightest since Fed was playing excellent tennis until he ran into Nadal in the final.

endbegin
10-28-2009, 07:46 AM
I'd say '09 Roddick would win. The '08 final was the most drama-filled match I have ever seen, but the '09 match was better sheer tennis quality.

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 07:47 AM
Roddick 04 straight sets Nadal. Thanks friends.

Cesc Fabregas
10-28-2009, 07:48 AM
Roddick 04 straight sets Nadal. Thanks friends.

Haha, good one.

kOaMaster
10-28-2009, 07:50 AM
I understand Federer having mono in January-February at AO(he didn't look ok physically to me) but come on,you expect me to believe mono was still affecting him 5 months later? In a tournament in which he didn't drop a set to the final? Hell,he dropped one set in WB 09' so one could presumbaly say that Fed from WB 09' played worse than in WB 08'?

you do underestimate this. it CAN affect you for months.
but I don't think it really was a problem in the final.
would also say nadal 08 would win vs this years roddick

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 07:52 AM
Haha, good one.


Match-up issues, match-up issues. Nadal is never having a prayer of breaking Roddick's serve backed up with his forehand. Now, it's just a question of whether Roddick can get a point in the TB, and I think his return was just enough to sneak that one point that he needed.




Tennis is a game of match-ups. If Federer and Sampras played on slower surfaces, Federer wins easily nearly every time. However, put Sampras against Nadal on any surface but clay, and it's a slaughter nearly every time in favor of Sampras. Yet Nadal owns Federer nearly everywhere.



Like I said, it's all about match-ups. 04 Roddick in fact matches up way better than 09 Roddick. He served bigger, hit bigger, and took more risks. That's exactly the prototype build that beats Nadal all the time.

tintin
10-28-2009, 07:54 AM
Roddick trying to serve and volley nowadays would get passed by Nadal all damn day!

dropshot winner
10-28-2009, 07:56 AM
Roddick trying to serve and volley nowadays would get passed by Nadal all damn day!

It's difficult to hit a pass off an ace.

Cesc Fabregas
10-28-2009, 07:56 AM
Match-up issues, match-up issues. Nadal is never having a prayer of breaking Roddick's serve backed up with his forehand. Now, it's just a question of whether Roddick can get a point in the TB, and I think his return was just enough to sneak that one point that he needed.




Tennis is a game of match-ups. If Federer and Sampras played on slower surfaces, Federer wins easily nearly every time. However, put Sampras against Nadal on any surface but clay, and it's a slaughter nearly every time in favor of Sampras. Yet Nadal owns Federer nearly everywhere.



Like I said, it's all about match-ups. 04 Roddick in fact matches up way better than 09 Roddick. He served bigger, hit bigger, and took more risks. That's exactly the prototype build that beats Nadal all the time.


Its not like Roddick went through the tournament without losing his serve, Nadal could just get the returns back and Roddick isn't going to hit everything for a winner or come to net and Nadal defence and passing shots would win him many points. Also when Nadal gets in charge of the point Roddick is history, Nadal would just abuse his backhand all day and just keep serving there. Nadal wins in 4.

kOaMaster
10-28-2009, 08:00 AM
It's difficult to hit a pass off an ace.

it's difficult to win a game if the only thing you can is hitting aces. ask karlovic, he knows.

dropshot winner
10-28-2009, 08:02 AM
it's difficult to win a game if the only thing you can is hitting aces. ask karlovic, he knows.

So why did Federer almost lose the final if Roddick struggles to win games and can only hit aces?

How did Roddick break Federer more often than the other way around? And didn't Federer hit more aces than Roddick?

tintin
10-28-2009, 08:04 AM
It's difficult to hit a pass off an ace.

only an idiot would post that;-)

so you think Roddick would only serve aces and not get his damn serve broken
you fool:roll:
Nadal would find a way to read Roddick's serve at some point and we know that all of Roddick's slice would get punished by Nadal's forehand dragging Roddick left and right
Nadal's backhand is 10x better than Roddick
despite the weight loss;Nadal still moves better and still faster and Nadal would take time away from your boy and run him wild

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 08:08 AM
Match-up issues, match-up issues. Nadal is never having a prayer of breaking Roddick's serve backed up with his forehand. Now, it's just a question of whether Roddick can get a point in the TB, and I think his return was just enough to sneak that one point that he needed.




Tennis is a game of match-ups. If Federer and Sampras played on slower surfaces, Federer wins easily nearly every time. However, put Sampras against Nadal on any surface but clay, and it's a slaughter nearly every time in favor of Sampras. Yet Nadal owns Federer nearly everywhere.



Like I said, it's all about match-ups. 04 Roddick in fact matches up way better than 09 Roddick. He served bigger, hit bigger, and took more risks. That's exactly the prototype build that beats Nadal all the time.

You make it sound as if Roddick's ROS was better in 04 than now. The answer to that is quite simply NO. It has not improved, nor has it got worst. Last year's Nadal would have Roddick for breakfast. Infact, he wouldn't even fill him up.

dropshot winner
10-28-2009, 08:08 AM
only an idiot would post that;-)

so you think Roddick would only serve aces and not get his damn serve broken
you fool:roll:
Nadal would find a way to read Roddick's serve at some point and we know that all of Roddick's slice would get punished by Nadal's forehand dragging Roddick left and right
Nadal's backhand is 10x better than Roddick
despite the weight loss;Nadal still moves better and still faster and Nadal would take time away from your boy and run him wild

Roddick doesn't serve and volley off a weak serve, and Nadal is not hittin passin shots off a 145 mph serve down the T.

The way Roddick was serving in that match I don't see how Nadal could break his serve more than once, and in the tiebreaks I'd give Roddick the edge.

Baikalic
10-28-2009, 08:10 AM
This should have been a poll =).

Hard one to say, Wimbledon 09 Roddick would have been very difficult to break because Rafa has a worse return of serve than Federer and the latter was having a very hard time reading Roddick that day.

Roddick-Nadal also have only one previous matchup on grass so it's hard to say precisely what the surface would bring to their matchup at Wimbledon. Assuming absolute top form I'll say that it would be a 5 set encounter with Roddick prevailing based on how well he was clocking in the dtl backhand.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 08:13 AM
This should have been a poll =).

Rafa has a worse return of serve than Federer


LMAO!! Surely someone with any sence will contradict this statement.

kOaMaster
10-28-2009, 08:22 AM
So why did Federer almost lose the final if Roddick struggles to win games and can only hit aces?

How did Roddick break Federer more often than the other way around? And didn't Federer hit more aces than Roddick?

that's exactly what I wanted to say. aces will not help winning vs nadal. just having a huge serve is not enough. I'm not saying roddick does not have the weapons to win vs nadal, but I still don't think he would've won vs nadal last year.

dropshot winner
10-28-2009, 08:23 AM
that's exactly what I wanted to say. aces will not help winning vs nadal. just having a huge serve is not enough. I'm not saying roddick does not have the weapons to win vs nadal, but I still don't think he would've won vs nadal last year.

I'm not saying that Roddick would've won, but he would definately had his chances.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-28-2009, 08:25 AM
So when Fed plays bad against Nadal it's solely because of Nadal but when Nadal plays bad/loses it's because he's exhausted/has injuried knees/injuried tummy/played with pain for the last 5 months/because of altitude etc. good to know.

Although I agree that mono excuse for Wimbledon is crap and doesn't hold water in the slightest since Fed was playing excellent tennis until he ran into Nadal in the final.


Well Nadal is one player historically, well the only player today really who has been able FORCE Fed to play bad. It shows in the h2h how Nadal has just been a horrible matchup for Fed over the years.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 08:47 AM
Like someone above me said - roddick in 04 in straights and i would go with roddick 09 in straight sets too. No way is nadal even having a break point on roddick's serve.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 08:50 AM
Like someone above me said - roddick in 04 in straights and i would go with roddick 09 in straight sets too. No way is nadal even having a break point on roddick's serve.

You are quite right, Roddick 2009 did get straight setted by Nadal in Indian Wells! LOL

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 08:51 AM
You are quite right, Roddick 2009 did get straight setted by Nadal in Indian Wells! LOL

On gras you fool. Roddick still played crap against nadal and nadal played really well and roddick still had his chances.

lambielspins
10-28-2009, 08:53 AM
2008 Nadal is too good for Roddick on any surface other than a lightning fast hard/indoor court which Dubai is alot like. Since I dont think we will see 2008 Nadal ever again, Roddick will have his chances in the future if they play on grass. Then again Roddick's 09 Wimbledon might have been his last time playing at that sort of level too.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 08:56 AM
2008 Nadal is too good for Roddick on any surface other than a lightning fast hard/indoor court which Dubai is alot like.

Nadal's record is misleading. They have played twice on clay, and once on grass with roddick injured, and when roddick played nadal at indian wells both times he played awful.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 08:56 AM
On gras you fool. Roddick still played crap against nadal and nadal played really well and roddick still had his chances.

You said "Roddick 2009 would straight set Nadal". That is obviously false and makes no sense since Roddick got straight setted a few months ago by Nadal. FYI, Indian Wells is a Hard court and therefore favors Roddick. While Nadal prefers the slower surface grass. So everything you've said means zit in my book.

lambielspins
10-28-2009, 09:00 AM
Match-up issues, match-up issues. Nadal is never having a prayer of breaking Roddick's serve backed up with his forehand. Now, it's just a question of whether Roddick can get a point in the TB, and I think his return was just enough to sneak that one point that he needed.




Tennis is a game of match-ups. If Federer and Sampras played on slower surfaces, Federer wins easily nearly every time. However, put Sampras against Nadal on any surface but clay, and it's a slaughter nearly every time in favor of Sampras. Yet Nadal owns Federer nearly everywhere.



Like I said, it's all about match-ups. 04 Roddick in fact matches up way better than 09 Roddick. He served bigger, hit bigger, and took more risks. That's exactly the prototype build that beats Nadal all the time.

You are right tennis is alot about matchups. However Roddick is not a tough matchup for Nadal at all. Roddick has only beaten Nadal once since 2004. He even was straight setted by Nadal on the very fast old style grass of Queens in 2008. On hard courts Roddick looks helpless when they play. Roddick doesnt hit hard enough off the ground to hurt Nadal. Roddick is mostly a very consistent baseliner who wins alot of rallies through his opponents errors, but this would never work vs Nadal. Even 2004 Roddick with the sometimes very big forehand, wouldnt have the backhand or movement to keep up with Nadal from the backcourt.

Now as for Roddick's serve weapon which he also relies so much on, Roddick serves down the middle often and rarely uses extreme angles out wide on the serve even when he goes wide. Nadal standing so far back is able to return even his big serves most of the time. Karlovic is much tougher for Nadal to return due to the angles he gets on his serve. Then on top of that Roddick doesnt follow his huge first serve to the net, so Nadal standing so far back to return doesnt hurt him.

Then dont even get me started on when Roddick tries to come in during rallies vs Nadal.

Tennis is indeed about matchups and Roddick is not a tough matchup for Nadal other than Nadal in diapers of 2004.

lambielspins
10-28-2009, 09:01 AM
Nadal's record is misleading. They have played twice on clay, and once on grass with roddick injured, and when roddick played nadal at indian wells both times he played awful.

If a player keeps losing like they are playing awful vs a certain opponent on numerous occasions there is probably a reason for that. Roddick's game isnt effective enough vs Nadal thus he is made to look awful most times he plays Nadal. There are too many excuses in your post, the fact is Nadal has owned Roddick completely since 2005. Roddick even hangs in more matches with Federer than Nadal, which is saying something.

Murray Magic
10-28-2009, 09:06 AM
There are too many excuses in your post, the fact is Nadal has owned Roddick completely since 2005. Roddick even hangs in more matches with Federer than Nadal, which is saying something.

+1

Roddick is Nadal's toy.

Turning Pro
10-28-2009, 09:09 AM
Big difference, Nadal won, roddick STILL lost despite having 4 Consecutive set points and netting an easy volley on one of them. Roddick won't be remembered, Nadal will. However Nadal was a beast on that day, barring rain delay it would have been straight sets. Tough to call since roddick could have beaten fed in straights or in 4 had he converted them set points.

Cyan
10-28-2009, 09:59 AM
Nadal....... He beat Roddick at Queen's which is faster than Wimbledon.

srinrajesh
10-28-2009, 10:01 AM
roddick could have taken a set off Nadal but he doesnt have the serve and volley game to finish off Nadal on the slower grass nowadays. He would get passed repeatedly ...

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 12:20 PM
You are right tennis is alot about matchups. However Roddick is not a tough matchup for Nadal at all. Roddick has only beaten Nadal once since 2004. He even was straight setted by Nadal on the very fast old style grass of Queens in 2008. On hard courts Roddick looks helpless when they play. Roddick doesnt hit hard enough off the ground to hurt Nadal. Roddick is mostly a very consistent baseliner who wins alot of rallies through his opponents errors, but this would never work vs Nadal. Even 2004 Roddick with the sometimes very big forehand, wouldnt have the backhand or movement to keep up with Nadal from the backcourt.

Now as for Roddick's serve weapon which he also relies so much on, Roddick serves down the middle often and rarely uses extreme angles out wide on the serve even when he goes wide. Nadal standing so far back is able to return even his big serves most of the time. Karlovic is much tougher for Nadal to return due to the angles he gets on his serve. Then on top of that Roddick doesnt follow his huge first serve to the net, so Nadal standing so far back to return doesnt hurt him.

Then dont even get me started on when Roddick tries to come in during rallies vs Nadal.

Tennis is indeed about matchups and Roddick is not a tough matchup for Nadal other than Nadal in diapers of 2004.



You're just hilarious. Nadal has nothing that can hurt Roddick of 2004. He wouldn't be touching his serve for one, and when he did, it would come screaming back at him. Roddick of 2004 is the prototype player that Nadal would hate to play against.



You can argue all you want, but I think the 140 mph serve and the 100 mph forehands certainly favor Roddick greatly on grass. Nadal is good, but he certainly is no monster of a returner. He could hardly even break Federer. Roddick of 2004 has these things over Federer :


1. He's not a mental incompetent fool against Nadal

2. He's going to take huge cuts at the ball and alot of risk, especially during pressure moments (something Federer rarely does)

3. He has a huge serve and forehand which will prevent Nadal from getting into any kind of rhythm.




And you're taking the Queens 2008 match way out of proportion. Roddick was playing the worst tennis of his career since 2005, and he only lost by a break in each set to an absolutely ON FIRE Nadal. Somehow that shows Nadal is going to crush Roddick? Really? You're kidding me.

Anaconda
10-28-2009, 12:26 PM
You're just hilarious. Nadal has nothing that can hurt Roddick of 2004. He wouldn't be touching his serve for one, and when he did, it would come screaming back at him. Roddick of 2004 is the prototype player that Nadal would hate to play against.



You can argue all you want, but I think the 140 mph serve and the 100 mph forehands certainly favor Roddick greatly on grass. Nadal is good, but he certainly is no monster of a returner. He could hardly even break Federer. Roddick of 2004 has these things over Federer :


1. He's not a mental incompetent fool against Nadal

2. He's going to take huge cuts at the ball and alot of risk, especially during pressure moments (something Federer rarely does)

3. He has a huge serve and forehand which will prevent Nadal from getting into any kind of rhythm.




And you're taking the Queens 2008 match way out of proportion. Roddick was playing the worst tennis of his career since 2005, and he only lost by a break in each set to an absolutely ON FIRE Nadal. Somehow that shows Nadal is going to crush Roddick? Really? You're kidding me.


I agree with this guy, but i think that 05 roddick was still very good IMO

onyxrose81
10-28-2009, 01:37 PM
Um, in 2008 Roddick was basically still injured and shouldn't have played Queen's or Wimbledon. He still just barely lost.

NamRanger
10-28-2009, 01:39 PM
I agree with this guy, but i think that 05 roddick was still very good IMO


At the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 (and most of it) Roddick was playing terrible tennis.

GraniteHoosier
10-28-2009, 04:01 PM
Nadal 08 would win pretty handily I would imagine. Roddick has had better years at Wimby than 2009, he was virtually a miracle half volley away from losing to Hewitt this year. Now Roddick from 2004 or 2005 may be a different story.

namelessone
10-28-2009, 10:03 PM
So when Fed plays bad against Nadal it's solely because of Nadal but when Nadal plays bad/loses it's because he's exhausted/has injuried knees/injuried tummy/played with pain for the last 5 months/because of altitude etc. good to know.

Although I agree that mono excuse for Wimbledon is crap and doesn't hold water in the slightest since Fed was playing excellent tennis until he ran into Nadal in the final.

I think you're missing the point I am trying to make. Federer doesn't usually play bad against Nadal but the matchup thing starts to give Fed shivers and he ends up playing badly on the key points in the match. Like I said,WB 08' Fed didn't drop a freaking set on his way to the final. How the hell was this guy playing bad? Unlike Nadal,Fed has weapons for all surfaces so by being more versatile he has less "excuses" when he loses. With the exception of mono at the beginning of 08' the only time when Fed was defeated was when he played very bad(see losses to fish,karlovic and so on),which is very rare and usually out of GS tournaments,but most of the time you have to make him play bad by either glitching his game or imposing yours. You can't wait for Federer to beat himself,you have to do it by forcing the issue. Are you trying to tell me that Fed was playing bad in WB 08' when he came down from 2-0 and had chances to make it 1-1? No,if you want to see playing VERY BAD go see Nadal's match with Almagro in USO(where he had problems with his abs) or his match with Davydenko in Shanghai. That's BAD,where Nadal couldn't even win against guys not having their best day.

Nadal,who doesn't have as many weapons,is vulnerable on HC and due to his style is more prone to injury and burnout. Many like to use it as an excuse but the fact is that it's a real problem for him. You have to play very good to play Fed on all surfaces. On HC,especially nowadays,you can beat Nadal even with an average game. I hope you don't think that Davy played an extraordinary game or that he made Nadal play bad. Nadal played bad in beijing and in shanghai,regardless of opponent,because he really sucks nowadays on HC and,with the exception of the blake match(first set),he was mediocre in all of them. Had Nadal been playing great tennis and then lost in the final,I would have tipped my hat to his opponent because he obviously figured Nadal out. What is there to figure out against Nadal on HC these days? Tee off his short shots,serve good,hope you don't spray too many balls out and you will win. Pretty simple stuff.

Or if you want another example from a few years ago,the chennai final,where even youzhny said he played against a ghost of Nadal. Why? Because Nadal had played a marathon semi against Moya and was finished physically for the final. When have you seen Federer in this position,to be too tired for a final?

You can't really compare the two or their "excuses",because they are very different players with very different games

welcome2petrkordaland
10-29-2009, 12:00 AM
i guess i'm not really THAT surprised to read such anti-nadal pro-roddick drivel and prattle.

on the "natural" surfaces-clay and grass-Nadal has such a huge advantage in the athletic ability department. and in a 3 of 5 set grand slam match, Nadal wins DECISIVELY.

roddick's best chance to even beat nadal is on a very fast hard court in a 2 of 3 setter. . . like in dubai '08 when roddick hit like 12 aces and 10 service winners in 2 sets. . . even w/ those numbers, that first set went to TB.

people, roddick is a second tier player. sure, he's been playin' his best tennis of his career but the incredibly close federer -roddick wimby final '09 is living proof that federer is not what he used to be.

newflash. fed's 2 slams this year were indeed well earned, but boy did fed get lucky w/ rafa losing french and w/drawing from wimby.

go home roddick fanboys and try to recruit and develop some American tennis players with some athletic ability for a change

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 12:09 AM
well we will find out next year cos i dont see federer being there, will come down to nadal v roddick in either the semi or final

sh@de
10-29-2009, 01:03 AM
well we will find out next year cos i dont see federer being there, will come down to nadal v roddick in either the semi or final

Worry about your guy's knees first before predicitng other players' futures.

Polvorin
10-29-2009, 01:03 AM
I actually think Roddick. His game is more built for grass. I doubt Nadal would break his serve many times if at all if they played in a big Wimbledon match.

Polvorin
10-29-2009, 01:29 AM
well we will find out next year cos i dont see federer being there, will come down to nadal v roddick in either the semi or final

Who do you see beating him? You will probably make a lot of money betting against him. Share the wisdom departed by your crystal ball!

Cody
10-29-2009, 01:51 AM
Who do you see beating him? You will probably make a lot of money betting against him. Share the wisdom departed by your crystal ball!

Give him a break, he does have nadal in his name.........

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 01:54 AM
At the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 (and most of it) Roddick was playing terrible tennis.

The majority of 2005 roddick was playing good tennis. But yeah, at the end of 2005 (even though he was #3) he was playing like crap, same with 2006, as you already mentioned.

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 02:03 AM
i guess i'm not really THAT surprised to read such anti-nadal pro-roddick drivel and prattle.

on the "natural" surfaces-clay and grass-Nadal has such a huge advantage in the athletic ability department. and in a 3 of 5 set grand slam match, Nadal wins DECISIVELY.

roddick's best chance to even beat nadal is on a very fast hard court in a 2 of 3 setter. . . like in dubai '08 when roddick hit like 12 aces and 10 service winners in 2 sets. . . even w/ those numbers, that first set went to TB.

people, roddick is a second tier player. sure, he's been playin' his best tennis of his career but the incredibly close federer -roddick wimby final '09 is living proof that federer is not what he used to be.

newflash. fed's 2 slams this year were indeed well earned, but boy did fed get lucky w/ rafa losing french and w/drawing from wimby.

go home roddick fanboys and try to recruit and develop some American tennis players with some athletic ability for a change

1st of all Roddick did beat Nadal in a 5 set match at the US open, but never mind. Seeing as roddick went the distance i don't think he will fade physically.

As for what tier Roddick stands in, i don't know, there is no granding criteria for that stuff. All i know is that roddick 2003 beats nadal with his eyes close, roddick 2004 owns nadal, 2005 roddick would win comforably, 2006/07/08 yep nadal would win, but roddick 2009 roddick would tough out a win. And actually 2006 was debateable because roddick became great again later that year........

Your a 2nd tier poster.

chalkflewup
10-29-2009, 02:21 AM
I hate it when the Einstein's on here say Fed got lucky that Rafa lost. Fed just took care of business. Rafa did not. And Rafa didn't lose to Del Potro. He was completely DECIMATED.

Roddick had a solid career. Hall of Fame material? No way. Big serve. No backhand. Is Rafa Hall of Fame Material. Put in stone (or clay) -- he's in.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 02:37 AM
^ nadal said after that del potro us open semi that he could only serve into the middle of the box, couldnt serve out wide because of the agony (plus he made a bundle of unforced errors because of that agony effecting his movement), nadal made his 2nd straight us open semi, highly impressive

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 02:38 AM
I actually think Roddick. His game is more built for grass. I doubt Nadal would break his serve many times if at all if they played in a big Wimbledon match.

nadal beat roddick at queens final 2008

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 02:39 AM
I hate it when the Einstein's on here say Fed got lucky that Rafa lost. Fed just took care of business. Rafa did not. And Rafa didn't lose to Del Potro. He was completely DECIMATED.

Roddick had a solid career. Hall of Fame material? No way. Big serve. No backhand. Is Rafa Hall of Fame Material. Put in stone (or clay) -- he's in.

So, your analysis of a matchup is whether they are hall of famers? ok, that makes sense......not. Fool, a matchup is a matchup. Soderling beat Nadal (a hal of famer) does this mean soderling is a HOF'er...........Think about what you said for a minute. Then come back and retype another message which has got some sense behind it.

dropshot winner
10-29-2009, 02:43 AM
I hate it when the Einstein's on here say Fed got lucky that Rafa lost. Fed just took care of business. Rafa did not. And Rafa didn't lose to Del Potro. He was completely DECIMATED.

Roddick had a solid career. Hall of Fame material? No way. Big serve. No backhand. Is Rafa Hall of Fame Material. Put in stone (or clay) -- he's in.

Roddick is hall of fame, and without a doubt.

1 slam win, 4 additional finals (all lost to Federer), 10 SF, 27 titles, top10 for like 7-8 years.

kOaMaster
10-29-2009, 02:54 AM
roddick is about the same level as michael chang. chang was never among the best players but close behind. and he got into the tennis-hof last year. so I think the same will happen with roddick.

don't see roddick winning any more gs, maybe a masters but even that is going to be tough

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 03:20 AM
roddick is about the same level as michael chang. chang was never among the best players but close behind. and he got into the tennis-hof last year. so I think the same will happen with roddick.

don't see roddick winning any more gs, maybe a masters but even that is going to be tough

Roddick has got into more grand slam finals than his masters win collection. Don't write him off just yet.

borg number one
10-29-2009, 05:01 AM
I would go with '08 Nadal over '09 Roddick, in 4 or 5 sets. Nadal was totally "dialed in" with his groundstrokes and passing shots.

I would have loved watching Nadal and Federer play again, but perhaps we'll watch them face off again in the 2010 final. I think Federer against Roddick was a better scenario for him than a match against either Nadal or crowd-favorite Murray.

paulorenzo
10-29-2009, 05:05 AM
roddick's backhand was firing beyond well and was in great form.
roddick in 4.

viduka0101
10-29-2009, 05:06 AM
it would be a close match but i pick nadal because of the 5-2 h2h advantage and because he beat him on every surface

NamRanger
10-29-2009, 05:48 AM
nadal beat roddick at queens final 2008



A. Not the Queens final

B. You forgot to mention Roddick had not played a match in something like a month, and obviously was not healthy.

C. Nadal only won by like a break in each set despite an off form and injured Roddick.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 05:53 AM
roddick would have a hard time winning any of the rallies v nadal, that makes it very hard to favor roddick on any surface over nadal, how does he win points apart from service winners?

NamRanger
10-29-2009, 06:04 AM
roddick would have a hard time winning any of the rallies v nadal, that makes it very hard to favor roddick on any surface over nadal, how does he win points apart from service winners?



Roddick never gets his serve broken by Nadal unless he plays terribly. If he upped the pace on the forehand like we all know he can, it becomes a match of who breaks serve first. And I'd clearly favor Roddick if he was playing well if it was on a fast HC/grass.

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 06:20 AM
Roddick never gets his serve broken by Nadal unless he plays terribly. If he upped the pace on the forehand like we all know he can, it becomes a match of who breaks serve first. And I'd clearly favor Roddick if he was playing well if it was on a fast HC/grass.

And to add, if i may. The Roddick serve of 2004 & 2009 is a lock for the match and would be unbreakable against someone like Nadal that roddick could play high risk on Nadal's serve all day long. Tiebreaks i think roddick takes it.

TMF
10-29-2009, 06:38 AM
nadal beat roddick at queens final 2008

That's a weak argument. Winning queen doesn't necesary means he would of beat Roddick in a 5 setters. Take a look at Sampras....losing to Hewitt in Queen but still win SW19 in 2000. He also lost to Safford, Bjorkman, and Martin in 3 separate ocassions at queen, but still won 3 SW19 in those same years.

Telepatic
10-29-2009, 06:58 AM
Now it might seem like a walkover by Nadal, but think about it. It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.

So who do you think, would win if they matched up?

My guess is Roddick in 4

WTF/................

borg number one
10-29-2009, 07:07 AM
Here's video to compare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmreB6MOio
Federer-Roddick (2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThlrqctoyCY&feature=PlayList&p=7E50260536F84DF1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1
Federer-Nadal '08 Final)

LiveForever
10-29-2009, 08:00 AM
Nadal would have won for sure. Nadal's 08 form was amazing.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 08:43 AM
And people are forgetting grass is much slower.. Today its going to to favor the superior baseliner of course. Roddick's serve would win him a set or two, it could quite possibly get him into the 5th set with Nadal.. But Nadal is light years off the ground way better than Roddick is, especially with Roddick without his use of the big serve followed up the big FH going for broke. Not to mention Nadal IS a bad matchup for Roddick. Roddick has failed to beat Nadal in quite a few times in the h2h as Nadal's ground game is just too much for Roddick to handle. Not to mention Nadal in 08 was playing the very best tennis of his career.

How could anyone think an 09 level Roddick would beat a top form Nadal at the peak of his powers on his 2nd best surface? nahhh...

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 08:54 AM
And people are forgetting grass is much slower.. Today its going to to favor the superior baseliner of course. Roddick's serve would win him a set or two, it could quite possibly get him into the 5th set with Nadal.. But Nadal is light years off the ground way better than Roddick is, especially with Roddick without his use of the big serve followed up the big FH going for broke. Not to mention Nadal IS a bad matchup for Roddick. Roddick has failed to beat Nadal in quite a few times in the h2h as Nadal's ground game is just too much for Roddick to handle. Not to mention Nadal in 08 was playing the very best tennis of his career.

How could anyone think an 09 level Roddick would beat a top form Nadal at the peak of his powers on his 2nd best surface? nahhh...

You chat ****

P_Agony
10-29-2009, 09:12 AM
And people are forgetting grass is much slower.. Today its going to to favor the superior baseliner of course. Roddick's serve would win him a set or two, it could quite possibly get him into the 5th set with Nadal.. But Nadal is light years off the ground way better than Roddick is, especially with Roddick without his use of the big serve followed up the big FH going for broke. Not to mention Nadal IS a bad matchup for Roddick. Roddick has failed to beat Nadal in quite a few times in the h2h as Nadal's ground game is just too much for Roddick to handle. Not to mention Nadal in 08 was playing the very best tennis of his career.

How could anyone think an 09 level Roddick would beat a top form Nadal at the peak of his powers on his 2nd best surface? nahhh...

How about Roddick pulling a Nalbandian-like BH at Wimbly this year? Roddick's ground game is highly underrated.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 09:38 AM
How about Roddick pulling a Nalbandian-like BH at Wimby this year? Roddick's ground game is highly underrated.

ground game was going pretty good at wimbeldon this year for Roddick .. But his return game has and will always be subpar-average and thats what kills him against Fed every time. Had a big win over Murray.. But Murray is no Nadal in 08 form on grass I think we can agree. Fed served very well in the final vs Roddick, but Nadal was also serving pretty well in 08. But I still think the tale of the tape is if Nadal can somehow get the A-Rod serve back, once they both got into a baseline assault against each other Nadal is just too much to handle for Roddick. Im not so sure Fed played any better at wimbeldon this past year than he did last year in the final.. Its just last year he ran into a Nadal in top form and very well could have been straight setted. Roddick played the best he possibly could play, Fed served well, but his ground game was certainly not "peak Fed-like" not to mentioned Fed early on missed a ton on cruical points, and he STILL came out the winner

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 09:42 AM
This isnt 90s lightning fast grass here guys... This is slow grass sodded to the to the heavens where the ball bounces higher, and your opponent has time to return. This favors Nadal. If it was the older wimbeldon surface pre 01-02, than Roddick's chances are good with his big serve and FH but its not

TennisandMusic
10-29-2009, 09:44 AM
Silly. Nadal easily. Nadal is a much better player, and the Wimbledon 08 final was far better than 09. It was only so close because Federer didn't really play that well. If Federer played like he did in 08 he would have beaten Roddick in 3 or 4. Go watch that match again people. Nadal played some amazing tennis...

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 09:47 AM
And apart of me thinks Roddick is AFRAID to win slams almost and the pressure gets too much for him


You have to ask yourself over the last 6-7 years or so.. How many slams has Roddick been where he was a major player or a pretty darn big favorite and for one reason or another just could never get it done.

dh003i
10-29-2009, 09:47 AM
Federer simply doesn't get enough respect. Some people say that he played badly vs. Nadal and Del Potro because they made him play badly. That is humbug. They played their best games, or nearly their best; so Federer had to play nearly his best to beat them.

Here's a really "crazy" idea: how about we assume that the guy who won 5 Wimbledons and US Opens in a row, 6 Wimbledons total, 3 AO's, and 1 FO and as been ranked #1 for the vast majority of time since 2003, is the best player in the field today on all surfaces except clay. It is not a stretch to say that if he loses outside of clay, it is because of him, not the other player; because 15 GS and 4.5 straight years at #1 strongly suggests that if he plays his best, no-one in the current field can beat him (except Nadal on clay).

zagor
10-29-2009, 09:48 AM
I think you're missing the point I am trying to make. Federer doesn't usually play bad against Nadal but the matchup thing starts to give Fed shivers and he ends up playing badly on the key points in the match. Like I said,WB 08' Fed didn't drop a freaking set on his way to the final. How the hell was this guy playing bad?

I never said Fed was playing bad at Wimbledon last year(I think he played very well actually and the final was great tennis from both guys).I know Nadal has the game to take Fed out of rhytm and mentally has the advantage because of how their game match-up(Nadal can play his usual game against Fed while Fed has to adjust and take risks plus the beatdown at FO Nadal gave that year might have also affected Fed mentally).

However some players also have the game to do the same to Nadal especially on HC but when they do it's Nadal's playing like crap/tired/is in pain bla bla bla.

Unlike Nadal,Fed has weapons for all surfaces so by being more versatile he has less "excuses" when he loses.

How so? You're being contradictory here,you're saying Fed has more weapons and is more versatile than Nadal but if that's true isn't it harder to outplay Fed than Nadal then? Yet if Fed loses it's because opponent made him play bad(outplayed him in other words)but when Nadal loses it's because of various different things unrelated to his opponent.

You can't wait for Federer to beat himself,you have to do it by forcing the issue.

You're describing Nadal here,not Federer,especially Federer of 2008/2009 who had matches were he made like 100 unforced errors off the FH side.In 2008 he had matches were he sprayed FH all over the place,please.In many of his losses opponent was playing defensive,not forcing the issue in any way.

No,if you want to see playing VERY BAD go see Nadal's match with Almagro in USO(where he had problems with his abs) or his match with Davydenko in Shanghai. That's BAD,where Nadal couldn't even couldn't win against guys not having their best day

Ehm,Nadal won against Almagro.As for Kolja,he has 3 wins in a row against Nadal on HC and is overall 2-0 against Nadal in HC finals,I think it has actually something to do with him and his game as well(I know crazy).

On HC,especially nowadays,you can beat Nadal even with an average game.

Comlete BS,if that were true Nadal would be losing in early rounds in HC tourneys not in SF and finals,you need to look up the word "average".

I hope you don't think that Davy played an extraordinary game or that he made Nadal play bad.

Eh,yes I do think Kolja played great in Beijing,he beat #2 and #3 players in the whole freaking world in a row,newsflash you have to play great tennis to do that.And yes call me crazy but I do think that Kolja has the game to outplay Nadal on HC(make him play bad as you say).

Nadal played bad in beijing and in shanghai,regardless of opponent,because he really sucks nowadays on HC and,with the exception of the blake match(first set),he was mediocre in all of them.

Suck and mediocre would be approprite if Nadal was losing in early rounds(like Fed did in most HC tourneys in 2008),he isn't,he's reaching SF and finals.You're indircetly calling Nadal's opponents before SF morons in that they can't beat a sucky mediocre Nadal,maybe those players should take up golf or something since they obviously suck at tennis.

Had Nadal been playing great tennis and then lost in the final,I would have tipped my hat to his opponent because he obviously figured Nadal out.

Problem is that that it's impossible,when Nadal's loses he's never playing great it's rather because of various injuries/10 months of pain/altitutude or fatigue.He's only fine when he wins.

What is there to figure out against Nadal on HC these days? Tee off his short shots,serve good,hope you don't spray too many balls out and you will win. Pretty simple stuff.

Dear Lord,do I have to repeat myself again? If it was simple to beat Nadal on HC he would have been losing before SF/F.You should take up coaching all those morons who faced Nadal before SF in HC tourneys and explain to them how it's so damn simple to beat Nadal.

Or if you want another example from a few years ago,the chennai final,where even youzhny said he played against a ghost of Nadal. Why? Because Nadal had played a marathon semi against Moya and was finished physically for the final. When have you seen Federer in this position,to be too tired for a final?

I've seen Federer look tired in various stages of some matches,doesn't mean I'll use that as excuse because it's quite frankly ridiculous to do so.Fitness is part of the game and if opponent is more fitter overall or has more gas in the tank for that particular match or the fifth set than all power to him,he won deservedly.

You can't really compare the two or their "excuses",because they are very different players with very different games

Yes,I understood that at the beginning.Fed doesn't have off days and give matches away,he loses because his opponent outplays him while Nadal who actually has less weapons(you said it yourself)loses because of various circumstances and because he's playing mediocre but not because opponent figured him out and outplayed him.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 09:49 AM
Federer simply doesn't get enough respect. Some people say that he played badly vs. Nadal and Del Potro because they made him play badly. That is humbug. They played their best games, or nearly their best; so Federer had to play nearly his best to beat them.

Here's a really "crazy" idea: how about we assume that the guy who won 5 Wimbledons and US Opens in a row, 6 Wimbledons total, 3 AO's, and 1 FO and as been ranked #1 for the vast majority of time since 2003, is the best player in the field today on all surfaces except clay. It is not a stretch to say that if he loses outside of clay, it is because of him, not the other player; because 15 GS and 4.5 straight years at #1 strongly suggests that if he plays his best, no-one in the current field can beat him (except Nadal on clay).

Nadal has the ability to make Fed not look like the best player in the world. Its been that way for many years. Fed played very good at Wimbeldon in 07 and nadal still almost pulled it through.. Fed reached the wimbeldon finals in 08 without even dropping a set, then when he met Nadal, Fed found himself in a 2 set hole right off the bat. So Nadal CAN make Fed begin to question himself. It happened 3-4 years in a row at the French.. Happened at Wimbeldon. Happened at AO this past year and various smaller tournaments.

ksbh
10-29-2009, 09:54 AM
003 ... very weak argument and if I recall, Namranger has on more than one occasion illustrated how that argument has no merit in any way.

All reasoning aside, let me ask you a simple question ... if Federer is unbeatable when he plays his best, then why doesn't he play his best every single time?!


Here's a really "crazy" idea: how about we assume that the guy who won 5 Wimbledons and US Opens in a row, 6 Wimbledons total, 3 AO's, and 1 FO and as been ranked #1 for the vast majority of time since 2003, is the best player in the field today on all surfaces except clay. It is not a stretch to say that if he loses outside of clay, it is because of him, not the other player; because 15 GS and 4.5 straight years at #1 strongly suggests that if he plays his best, no-one in the current field can beat him (except Nadal on clay).

fed_rulz
10-29-2009, 09:59 AM
And apart of me thinks Roddick is AFRAID to win slams almost and the pressure gets too much for him


You have to ask yourself over the last 6-7 years or so.. How many slams has Roddick been where he was a major player or a pretty darn big favorite and for one reason or another just could never get it done.

Why do you remind me of GameSampras?

Ahhh....


Roddick loses another close one today against Del Potro in Washington. So close yet so far away.

This guy seems to be incapable or afraid of actually winning tournaments.. Its been a reoccuring theme his entire career

zagor
10-29-2009, 10:03 AM
003 ... very weak argument and if I recall, Namranger has on more than one occasion illustrated how that argument has no merit in any way.

All reasoning aside, let me ask you a simple question ... if Federer is unbeatable when he plays his best, then why doesn't he play his best every single time?!

Eh,because he's human? Fed plays his best pretty damn often,that's why he has record 15 slams and has won a slam on every surface but he has off days as any other player in history did,don't see why Fed would be different in that regard.

As for Namranger's argument,I agree with him that tennis is about match-ups and that Nadal makes it hard for Fed to play his best because he has the game to force Fed to play defensive.

dh003i
10-29-2009, 10:10 AM
003 ... very weak argument and if I recall, Namranger has on more than one occasion illustrated how that argument has no merit in any way.

No, actually it is a very strong argument. 15 slams and 4.5 straight years at #1 pretty much means that Federer is the best player in the field today. So yes, if he loses outside of clay, it is because he wasn't playing his best; because his best is better than anyone else's best on the tour on all surfaces except clay.

That is an argument from actual evidence. Federer's poor, average, good, great, and best performances are better than those (respectively) of anyone else on the tour on all surfaces except clay. This has been borne out by the results.

All reasoning aside, let me ask you a simple question ... if Federer is unbeatable when he plays his best, then why doesn't he play his best every single time?!

I think that Nadal is basically unbeatable on clay (during his prime) when he plays his best there. Why doesn't he do it all the time? What about those losses to Federer, Ferrero, and Soderling. I guess it's because he was either tired, injured, or too high on those occassions. (if you're going to say that, I'd say that the same is true when Federer loses GS outside of clay).

The reality is, there are a variety of reasons why players don't always play their best. At last year's Wimbledon final, Federer's ground-game was a little off, and his second serve wasn't strong; at this year's AO and USO, his serve was just awful. That, serve, has little to nothing to do with the opponent, and is clearly under the player's control (or not). I mean, it is a random thing.

Some days, you just don't play your best. Maybe there is some unknown reason, or maybe it is just random chance (even for a player with 80% 1st serves in, it can just be random chance that one day they get 40% in). Maybe a string of random bad luck gets to a player and causes things to further deterioriate. Maybe the player is a little tired, or injured. Maybe they aren't quite in form.

The point is, no player will always play their best tennis. Nadal clearly played his best tennis at the FO '08 SF and F; that's the best I've ever seen him play. He also played his best at Wimbledon '08. I, however, find it pretty trivial to say that the 6-time champion at Wimbledon is going to beat Nadal's best on grass if he plays his best too; he didn't in '08, although he still played great (there's a difference between great and best).

I also find it pretty trivial to say that, despite Soderling playing his best claycourt tennis vs. Nadal at the FO, Nadal still would have won, albeit in a tough match, over Soderling at the FO this year had Nadal played his best. This is despite Soderling neutralizing to a large extent Nadal's biggest weapon on clay (high-bouncing balls).

dh003i
10-29-2009, 10:27 AM
Eh,because he's human? Fed plays his best pretty damn often,that's why he has record 15 slams and has won a slam on every surface but he has off days as any other player in history did,don't see why Fed would be different in that regard.

Exactly.

As for Namranger's argument,I agree with him that tennis is about match-ups and that Nadal makes it hard for Fed to play his best because he has the game to force Fed to play defensive.

None-the-less, it took the match of Nadal's life on grass to barely beat a Federer who easily could've taken the 1st 2 sets, in a 5-set match. And it took the form of his life at the AO to beat a Federer who was serving awfully (and there's no way anyone can tell me that Nadal is "forcing" Federer to serve at 50%).

Tennis is indeed about matchups, but it's also about raw talent too, and Federer is just a lot better than Nadal as a tennis player. Not to disrespect Nadal, but 15 is a much bigger number than 6. And since Nadal has won his 1st FO, Federer has out-slammed him every year (3 or 2 slams to 1) except '08 (1 slam to 2).

Federer has 6 Wimbledons, 5 USOs, 3 AOs, and 1 FO. 2 of the Wimbledons are over Nadal, Nadal won 1 Wimby over Fed. That means he is overall a much better player than Nadal on grass (he is in contention for best ever on grass, and still may claim greatest ever on grass if he wins 1 more Wimbledon). Nadal doesn't make top 10 on grass. As far as USO, there's no comparison; Nadal isn't on the list of greats at all there. AO, Federer is significantly better than Nadal (3 to 1). FO is where Nadal is much better, and Federer doesn't make top 10.

Despite the matchup problems Nadal presents for Federer, Federer is going to beat him every time if he's playing his best outside of clay; simply because he is significantly better on other surfaces.

kingdaddy41788
10-29-2009, 10:44 AM
Roddick hands down.

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 10:49 AM
Nadal lost against soderling on clay.

Roddick on grass is better than soderling on clay. And Nadal was playing tennis of his life in the FO this year and still lost.

ksbh
10-29-2009, 10:56 AM
Zagor & 003 ... great posts! Agreed :)

kingdaddy41788
10-29-2009, 11:00 AM
And people are forgetting grass is much slower.. Today its going to to favor the superior baseliner of course. Roddick's serve would win him a set or two, it could quite possibly get him into the 5th set with Nadal.. But Nadal is light years off the ground way better than Roddick is, especially with Roddick without his use of the big serve followed up the big FH going for broke. Not to mention Nadal IS a bad matchup for Roddick. Roddick has failed to beat Nadal in quite a few times in the h2h as Nadal's ground game is just too much for Roddick to handle. Not to mention Nadal in 08 was playing the very best tennis of his career.

How could anyone think an 09 level Roddick would beat a top form Nadal at the peak of his powers on his 2nd best surface? nahhh...

This should serve as proof that they've ruined what a grass court is really supposed to be. It's not that it's slow that is the problem - it's the uniform bounce. The unpredictable bounce on grass was supposed to force you to hit volleys. It's kind of ridiculous - they've made it like a second clay surface.

NamRanger
10-29-2009, 12:36 PM
And people are forgetting grass is much slower.. Today its going to to favor the superior baseliner of course. Roddick's serve would win him a set or two, it could quite possibly get him into the 5th set with Nadal.. But Nadal is light years off the ground way better than Roddick is, especially with Roddick without his use of the big serve followed up the big FH going for broke. Not to mention Nadal IS a bad matchup for Roddick. Roddick has failed to beat Nadal in quite a few times in the h2h as Nadal's ground game is just too much for Roddick to handle. Not to mention Nadal in 08 was playing the very best tennis of his career.

How could anyone think an 09 level Roddick would beat a top form Nadal at the peak of his powers on his 2nd best surface? nahhh...




Because Roddick isn't a mental midget against Nadal and cheats to his BH side when playing against Nadal, unlike Federer who stands in the bisector of the service angle like an idiot nearly every time.



Nadal is not a bad match-up for Roddick. Every match has been competitive short of that one USO blow out and the Davis Cup match on clay.

Anaconda
10-29-2009, 01:18 PM
Well, except for Federer, only Hewitt caused Roddick problems and Roddick actually beat prime hewitt on grass, and Nadal is a better match up - as for roddick's concern.

Nadal doesn't return well enough to even get a BP on Roddick serving at 70-80%, Murray and Federer struggled on Roddick's serve alone at this years wimbledon.

As for the grounstrokes, the baseline battle is in the hands of the most powerful opponent on court. Roddick's forehand will alone settle the baseline dispute and Nadal would be helpless, hell, soderling overpowered nadal on clay, roddick has a harder and better serve+Forehand combo.

The only Nadal beats roddick is if roddick beats himslef via double faults and unforced errors.

Joseph L. Barrow
10-29-2009, 03:23 PM
Now it might seem like a walkover by Nadal, but think about it. It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.

So who do you think, would win if they matched up?

My guess is Roddick in 4
...In what sense would it seem like a "walkover" for Nadal to anyone who saw Roddick's play in the last couple rounds of this year's Wimbledon? The obvious reference point would be their relative results against Federer, which were nearly identical (Nadal narrowly won but could easily have lost, Roddick narrowly lost but could easily have won). Roddick probably played the better version of Federer (Federer was in the midst of a slump as of '08 Wimbledon, while he was riding high going into the '09 event), and does not match up as well against Federer as Nadal does stylistically, which makes his showing all the more impressive.

All in all, Federer is a considerably more imposing challenge for Roddick stylistically and mentally than Nadal is, and it took everything Roger had to squeak by him in a match which would almost certainly have gone the other way if any one of several points had gone slightly differently. I tend to think the Roddick of the Wimbledon final would have won over any active player aside from Federer, including Nadal.

Chadwixx
10-29-2009, 03:25 PM
Id go with roddick, fed wasnt 100% in 2008. He was in 2009 and roddick took him to the limit.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 03:31 PM
all we have to go by is the head-to-head which nadal leads 5-2 (2-2 on hardcourt, 1-0 grass), and roddick rarely plays his best tennis in big matches, so add even more favorance to nadal for his clutchness ability (while roddick showed again in the wimbledon final that he is not clutch, holding serve the entire match until he had a sniff of victory and then lost it), i think it just bothers people that federer almost lost to roddick, because nadal v roddick is a no-brainer and roddick doesnt hit a service winner on every point on his serve so that puts him in danger everytime nadal gets the ball back in play and even more danger in a wimbledon final when the pressure is on, whereas federer donates plenty of unforced errors on roddicks serve

IvanAndreevich
10-29-2009, 03:33 PM
Id go with roddick, fed wasnt 100% in 2008. He was in 2009 and roddick took him to the limit.

Sorry, Fed wasn't 100% in the final. He played very poorly by HIS standards. He missed a total sitter which would have given him the first set easily 6-4.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 03:39 PM
^ and imagine if federer didnt serve 50 aces, then his groundgame would have been even more of a problem and probably would have lost in 4 to roddick

TMF
10-29-2009, 03:42 PM
Sorry, Fed wasn't 100% in the final. He played very poorly by HIS standards. He missed a total sitter which would have given him the first set easily 6-4.

But you can argue Roger messed up alot in 2008...he failed to convert many break point chances. He was 1 for 13 to be exact.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 03:53 PM
^ yeah the federer-nadal matchup is different dynamic it seems that federer is scared on big points, while the federer-roddick dynamic is the opposite its roddick if anyone who is scared on big points (though he did a good job until the final game last time)

Chadwixx
10-29-2009, 03:57 PM
But you can argue Roger messed up alot in 2008...he failed to convert many break point chances. He was 1 for 13 to be exact.

Was talking about his health, not how well he played.

He could barely hold his racket in 2008, he is lucky to have made it through the match :)

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 04:00 PM
^ although federer looked just as bad in 09, continued with the unforced errors (at all the slams, though looked better at the aus open than the others) and had trouble beating guys like haas and del potro, basically nadals absence was the only reason why federer won slams this year despite playing often worse than 2008

Joseph L. Barrow
10-29-2009, 04:21 PM
If we talking a wimbeldon a final, than Rafa takes this.. Roddick has proven time and time again to have serious nerve problems in finals and if Nadal could get the serve of Roddick's back in play that would be more than enough to bully Roddick from the baseline.

Hell Fed didnt look good in the final at all and still manage to squeak out the win over Roddick and Nadal Wimbeldon 08 is better than Fed 09 Wimbeldon.

To think career final choker A-Rod would outdo mentally physically peak Nadal at the heigth of his career is a bit crazy.
Roddick is not a "career final choker" at all. He has a 27-17 record in finals, with seven of the losses coming to Federer, who beats him whether it's a final or not. He's 5-1 in Slam or Masters Series finals against players other than Federer. The worst you could fairly call him would be a "career final-loser-to-Federer."

It is true Roddick seemed to tighten up on his set points in the second against Federer in this last final, but no moreso than Nadal did in the fourth set in '08. It isn't as though Roddick was hitting double faults or wild errors. The set points transpired as follows:
1. good first serve by Roddick, Federer blocks it back, Roddick tries a soft slice, Federer hits it up the line, Roddick comes up with a good running forehand to Federer's feet, but Federer makes a brilliant pick-up backhand winner.
2. Federer hits a strong, well-placed, unreturned first serve.
3. Federer hits a strong, well-placed, unreturned first serve.
4. Roddick misses the first serve, comes up with a solid second delivery, they exchange a couple strokes, Roddick has Federer on the defensive and charges the net, Federer hits a high backhand pass, and Roddick misses the volley. This is the point which could be deemed a "choke" from Roddick, but it was a difficult volley he missed.

Now, admittedly, Roddick failed to close out that set largely because of nerves (given that he had been raining down aces and unreturned serves and making tough volleys consistently up until he reached set point, at which time he ceased to do both), but Nadal himself actually double-faulted while in a winning position in the fourth set of the '08 final and failed to put away two match points en route to dropping that tiebreaker. Nerves can get to anyone- or virtually anyone- on a stage that big.

As for the relative form of Federer in the '08 and '09 Wimbledons, let me point out that Federer's results were consistently better in the events surrounding the '09 Wimbledon than in those surrounding the '08 edition. I don't really see how Federer "didn't look good at all" in this year's Wimbledon final, given the numerous brilliant groundstroke winners and gobs of aces he hit, as reflected in the match statistics. His performance in the '08 final might have been more aesthetically pleasing to some because of the longer rallies. but this is a matter of style rather than quality of play.

Joseph L. Barrow
10-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Sorry, Fed wasn't 100% in the final. He played very poorly by HIS standards. He missed a total sitter which would have given him the first set easily 6-4.
No, he missed a shot which would have put him up 6-5 and in a position to serve for the set, which he may or may not have done successfully (keeping in mind that he was, in fact, broken in the next game in real life), and it isn't as though he shanked the ball into the stands; he missed by about a quarter inch per the challenge system, which is understandable, since Roddick's strong movement and rallying were driving him to hit closer to the lines in order to win points.

Federer clearly didn't play "very poorly" by his standards in this year's Wimbledon final- he registered 107 winners next to only 38 unforced errors, which is an excellent ratio even for Roger. This was not the best match Federer has ever played, but I think it was definitely an above-average performance.

For purposes of comparison, Federer registered 52 unforced errors in the '08 Wimbledon final, 14 more than in '09, and over fewer total points. He had 18 fewer winners as well, but I consider that one marginally less significant, given that Nadal is harder to hit winners (particularly aces) on than Roddick is.

Cup8489
10-29-2009, 04:56 PM
for me, i say roddick in 4. nadal's serve would not cause anywhere near as many problems for roddick as federer's, and so even with his somewhat poorer returning he would have made a match of it.

not to mention that nadal tends to come over the ball on his returns, a style of return roddick handles rather well, as opposed to federers seemingly-sitter block returns.

i say 4 because roddick surged in the 4th against federer, and i don't think he would have lost the second set tiebreak had he been playing against nadal's easier to return serve delivery.

Steve132
10-29-2009, 05:27 PM
^ although federer looked just as bad in 09, continued with the unforced errors (at all the slams, though looked better at the aus open than the others) and had trouble beating guys like haas and del potro, basically nadals absence was the only reason why federer won slams this year despite playing often worse than 2008

Nadal wasn't absent from Roland Garros. He lost. You do understand the difference, don't you?

As for Wimbledon, Federer is 72-1 over the past seven years on grass, his sole defeat coming after a 9-7 final set. Nadal has won a single Wimbledon title. It is far from obvious that he would even have reached the final, given how well Roddick played.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 05:56 PM
^ of course nadal wasnt absent at rg, but the point is federer didnt have to play him, and didnt have to play him in wimbledon, so dont make out as though federer was playing at a different level in 2009 compared to 2008, his game was littered with unforced errors in both years, and everybody can see that his form at roland garros 09 was his worst form in several years, and federer would have won 3 slams in 2008 if nadal hadnt been there

veroniquem
10-29-2009, 06:08 PM
Now it might seem like a walkover by Nadal, but think about it. It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.

So who do you think, would win if they matched up?

My guess is Roddick in 4

Ha ha very funny. Nadal vs Roddick already happened on grass last year at Queen's (even faster than W) and Nadal won in straights. Problem solved, thanks for asking.

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 06:11 PM
this is clearly a ploy of federer fans to convince themselves (since they arent convincing anyone else) that federer will beat nadal at wimbledon 2010, when really they have no idea what to expect

veroniquem
10-29-2009, 06:15 PM
^ of course nadal wasnt absent at rg, but the point is federer didnt have to play him, and didnt have to play him in wimbledon, so dont make out as though federer was playing at a different level in 2009 compared to 2008, his game was littered with unforced errors in both years, and everybody can see that his form at roland garros 09 was his worst form in several years, and federer would have won 3 slams in 2008 if nadal hadnt been there

I agree. I would say Fed's level was slightly below his 2008 level this year (except right after W when his confidence was shot in 2008). The reason why he won more slams is Rafa crashing. Fed won his RG matches unbelievably laboriously even vs has-been like Haas and at W he almost got ousted by a player he has always completely dominated and on his best surface. I know his results look better in 2009, so that's the paradox but I really don't think he's improved 1 bit since last year. I think his level keeps sliding a little bit with time. Without Rafa, there's no doubt he would have won at least 2 slams in 2008.

NamRanger
10-29-2009, 06:30 PM
Ha ha very funny. Nadal vs Roddick already happened on grass last year at Queen's (even faster than W) and Nadal won in straights. Problem solved, thanks for asking.



With Nadal playing his best tennis and Roddick during one of the worst stretches of his career. Come on, am I going to take Nadal's loss to Soderling, Del Potro, etc. at face value? No. I know Nadal has had problems getting back into the groove for whatever reason.



And it's not even like it was a blow out. Nadal won by a break in each set, and Roddick was playing like total *** the whole match.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-29-2009, 09:02 PM
Roddick is not a "career final choker" at all. He has a 27-17 record in finals, with seven of the losses coming to Federer, who beats him whether it's a final or not. He's 5-1 in Slam or Masters Series finals against players other than Federer. The worst you could fairly call him would be a "career final-loser-to-Federer."

It is true Roddick seemed to tighten up on his set points in the second against Federer in this last final, but no moreso than Nadal did in the fourth set in '08. It isn't as though Roddick was hitting double faults or wild errors. The set points transpired as follows:
1. good first serve by Roddick, Federer blocks it back, Roddick tries a soft slice, Federer hits it up the line, Roddick comes up with a good running forehand to Federer's feet, but Federer makes a brilliant pick-up backhand winner.
2. Federer hits a strong, well-placed, unreturned first serve.
3. Federer hits a strong, well-placed, unreturned first serve.
4. Roddick misses the first serve, comes up with a solid second delivery, they exchange a couple strokes, Roddick has Federer on the defensive and charges the net, Federer hits a high backhand pass, and Roddick misses the volley. This is the point which could be deemed a "choke" from Roddick, but truthfully, it was a difficult volley he missed.

Now, admittedly, Roddick failed to close out that set largely because of nerves (given that he had been raining down aces and unreturned serves and making tough volleys consistently up until he reached set point, at which time he ceased to do both), but Nadal himself actually double-faulted while in a winning position in the fourth set of the '08 final and failed to put away two match points en route to dropping that tiebreaker. Nerves can get to anyone- or virtually anyone- on a stage that big.

As for the relative form of Federer in the '08 and '09 Wimbledons, let me point out that Federer's results were consistently better in the events surrounding the '09 Wimbledon than in those surrounding the '08 edition. I don't really see how Federer "didn't look good at all" in this year's Wimbledon final, given the numerous brilliant groundstroke winners and gobs of aces he hit, as reflected in the match statistics. His performance in the '08 final might have been more aesthetically pleasing to some because of the longer rallies. but this is a matter of style rather than quality of play.



At wimbeldon last year, Fed went the whole slam without dropping ONE SET until reaching Nadal. There is alot of talk about Fed and his mono last year but he must have obviously been in good form at Wimbeldon to not drop one set until the final.. So it couldnt possibly have been affecting him that badly. But this year around French Open time and right after Fed began to pick his game up especially with Nadal going to the sidelines right after Madrid. Fed wins Madrid destroying Nadal. Fed wins the French Open and he breezes through Wimbeldon only dropping one set I believe through the entire slam. Again Fed in pretty good form. Maybe not peak form but good enough form.. And to be honest this match was Roddick's to win.. If there was ever a chance for Roddick to grab another slam this was it. I probably should not have labeled Roddick as a "career final choker". I think an overrall slam choker or a player who has failed time and time again to get over the "slam hump" would be more appropriate for Roddick. Nadal on the other hand does not had these types of issues outside of the issues. But its not actual a mental problem or tightness with Nadal.. His game just doesnt not translate well under those conditions on fast hardcourt 5 setters.

Though Roddick has no doubt showed his vulnerabilty against Fed and has laid some eggs and never capitilized on big moments against Fed which has been typical Roddick over the years. Its not just been Fed who has stopped Roddick's dreams of never grabbing more than a sole slam. We take Fed out of the equation we dont know how Roddick would have faired regardless. Roddick has laid some big eggs at slams over the years and not just to Fed. So lets not use Fed as the sole catalyst in determining Roddick's failures. Yes Fed has stopped Roddick from winning but so has other players as well.

Roddick is getting a little too much credit around sometimes.. Hes a good player, he isnt a Great player.

Jay_The_Nomad
10-29-2009, 09:06 PM
It took nadal 5 long sets to defeat a federer barely get any speed on second serves and riddled with mono.


Federer looked fighting fit when I watched the final last year.

So I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Jay_The_Nomad
10-29-2009, 09:08 PM
Sorry, Fed wasn't 100% in the final. He played very poorly by HIS standards. He missed a total sitter which would have given him the first set easily 6-4.

That just smacks of a man who is struggling mentally. Not physically.

zagor
10-29-2009, 10:17 PM
Id go with roddick, fed wasnt 100% in 2008. He was in 2009 and roddick took him to the limit.

He actually was 100% at Wimbledon last year,the guy didn't lose a single set on the way to the final so let's not act like he was crawling around court and sweating like a pig.

He was in very good form he just lost the final to another tennis great who also happens to be a very tough match-up for him,it isn't that freakin hard to understand.

IvanAndreevich
10-29-2009, 10:44 PM
That just smacks of a man who is struggling mentally. Not physically.

Absolutely. I think Fed's in great condition this year. Stayed strong, while Roddick lost a step (and he is FIT). But game wise Federer played a pretty loose GS final by his standards.

jamesblakefan#1
10-29-2009, 10:56 PM
Silly. Nadal easily. Nadal is a much better player, and the Wimbledon 08 final was far better than 09. It was only so close because Federer didn't really play that well. If Federer played like he did in 08 he would have beaten Roddick in 3 or 4. Go watch that match again people. Nadal played some amazing tennis...

I agree with this post completely. Nadal 08 was playing the best tennis of his career, meanwhile Roddick 09 still got taken to 5 by Hewitt, and lost sets to the likes of Chardy and Kunitsyn. Roddick would not outrally Nadal from the baseline, it just wouldn't happen, and Nadal's mentally stronger when it comes to TB's than Roddick. I don't see Roddick taking out Nadal....just don't. People act as if Roddick was in God mode during the Wimbledon 09 final...IMO Federer didn't play aggressive enough...he let Roddick dictate rallies. Taking nothing from Andy...but Fed played the last 3 sets or so in 08 better that the entire match in 09 IMO. Enough with this notion that Fed was gravely ill in 08...Nadal just beat him, dismantled him the first 2 sets, and outlasted him in 5. One of the best performances on the tennis court ever. And you think Roddick could beat that???

Where are the Nadal-***** to restore some order in this thread!!!!!!! :lol:

8pNADAL
10-29-2009, 10:58 PM
its a laughable thread, not worth arguing over, nobody will mistake roddick for nadal in history, they are on completely different levels (even on grass)

dropshot winner
10-29-2009, 11:02 PM
I agree with this post completely. Nadal 08 was playing the best tennis of his career, meanwhile Roddick 09 still got taken to 5 by Hewitt, and lost sets to the likes of Chardy and Kunitsyn. Roddick would not outrally Nadal from the baseline, it just wouldn't happen, and Nadal's mentally stronger when it comes to TB's than Roddick. I don't see Roddick taking out Nadal....just don't. People act as if Roddick was in God mode during the Wimbledon 09 final...IMO Federer didn't play aggressive enough...he let Roddick dictate rallies. Taking nothing from Andy...but Fed played the last 3 sets or so in 08 better that the entire match in 09 IMO. Enough with this notion that Fed was gravely ill in 08...Nadal just beat him, dismantled him the first 2 sets, and outlasted him in 5. One of the best performances on the tennis court ever. And you think Roddick could beat that???

Where are the Nadal-***** to restore some order in this thread!!!!!!! :lol:
I agree somewhat, but Hewitt is a very difficult match-up for Roddick, only peak Federer could return Roddick's serve as consistently as him.

And Roddick's 2009 tiebreak record was unbelievably good around Wimbledon ( I think around 16-3 or something like that).

2008 Nadal would've still been the slight favorite IMO, but the way Roddick was playing it would've put a lot of pressure on Nadal's serve, especially in tiebreaks where one lucky swing of Roddick on return could win him the set.

abmk
10-29-2009, 11:12 PM
close, but will go with a-rod. If fed,murray had problems returning roddick's serve, nadal surely would have much more

jamesblakefan#1
10-29-2009, 11:13 PM
I agree somewhat, but Hewitt is a very difficult match-up for Roddick, only peak Federer could return Roddick's serve as consistently as him.

And Roddick's 2009 tiebreak record was unbelievably good around Wimbledon ( I think around 16-3 or something like that).

2008 Nadal would've still been the slight favorite IMO, but the way Roddick was playing it would've put a lot of pressure on Nadal's serve, especially in tiebreaks where one lucky swing of Roddick on return could win him the set.

I think Roddick in 07 was in very similar form to the way he was this year. He was on fire by all estimations, not dropping a set en route to the QF that year. But even after being up 2 sets and a break to Gasquet he still managed to lose that match, losing 2 TBs. I think Roddick had lost something like 1 TB all season before that.

Just making the point that Roddick even at his best can be beaten. To say Nadal would stand no chance vs Roddick is only foolish pride. Gasquet only had to break him once to take him out, and Ricky's no monstrous server either. Yeah Gasquet was in the zone, but you don't think Nadal could get in the zone just as easily vs Roddick?

dropshot winner
10-29-2009, 11:21 PM
I think Roddick in 07 was in very similar form to the way he was this year. He was on fire by all estimations, not dropping a set en route to the QF that year. But even after being up 2 sets and a break to Gasquet he still managed to lose that match, losing 2 TBs. I think Roddick had lost something like 1 TB all season before that.

Just making the point that Roddick even at his best can be beaten. To say Nadal would stand no chance vs Roddick is only foolish pride. Gasquet only had to break him once to take him out, and Ricky's no monstrous server either. Yeah Gasquet was in the zone, but you don't think Nadal could get in the zone just as easily vs Roddick?

It's important to note that Gasquet's serve is MUCH better than Nadal's, there's much more room for a couple of return winners against Nadal.

Nadal would have it very difficult against the 09 Wimbledon Roddick because there's just no rythm.
Nadal can't do much against this kind of serving at 80%, standing 15 feet behind the baseline wouldn't get him very far.

Roddick wasn't hitting his backhand anywhere close to the level in 07 as he did in Wimbledon this year (and he hasn't since), even Roddick's forehand was way spinnier in 07.

abmk
10-29-2009, 11:25 PM
I agree with this post completely. Nadal 08 was playing the best tennis of his career, meanwhile Roddick 09 still got taken to 5 by Hewitt, and lost sets to the likes of Chardy and Kunitsyn.

that was the earlier rounds, roddick started playing better from 4R where he beat berdych in straights . hewitt's a bad matchup for a-rod ...

Roddick would not outrally Nadal from the baseline, it just wouldn't happen,

He doesn't need to ... all he needs to hold serve and take cuts at rafa's 2nd serves to break at the oppurtune moment or win the TBs

and Nadal's mentally stronger when it comes to TB's than Roddick.

umm, if I am not mistaken roddick has a better TB record than nadal and was 16-2 or something like that coming into the wimby finals this year . So this is a complete FAIL

Enough with this notion that Fed was gravely ill in 08...Nadal just beat him, dismantled him the first 2 sets, and outlasted him in 5. One of the best performances on the tennis court ever. And you think Roddick could beat that???


fed was perfectly fine , but the bold part is ridiculous. fed handed back the 2nd set to nadal on a silver platter by hitting many ridiculous errors ( from 4-1 to 4-6 ) , nadal played well, but it was more of fed handing it back to nadal ....

abmk
10-29-2009, 11:30 PM
I think Roddick in 07 was in very similar form to the way he was this year. He was on fire by all estimations, not dropping a set en route to the QF that year. But even after being up 2 sets and a break to Gasquet he still managed to lose that match, losing 2 TBs. I think Roddick had lost something like 1 TB all season before that.

Just making the point that Roddick even at his best can be beaten. To say Nadal would stand no chance vs Roddick is only foolish pride. Gasquet only had to break him once to take him out, and Ricky's no monstrous server either. Yeah Gasquet was in the zone, but you don't think Nadal could get in the zone just as easily vs Roddick?

umm, roddick was serving clearly better in 2009 , he was making MUCH better approaches than in the gasquet match and was better at the net. His FH ( very similar to his 2003-04 level ) and BH ( improved a lot ) were clearly better at this year's wimbledon . Enough said !

Joseph L. Barrow
10-30-2009, 12:50 AM
Ha ha very funny. Nadal vs Roddick already happened on grass last year at Queen's (even faster than W) and Nadal won in straights. Problem solved, thanks for asking.
1. Roddick was playing his first event back on the tour after a layoff due to a severe shoulder injury at the time.
2. Surely you realize that the Roddick of mid 2008, who proceeded to lose to Tipsarevic in the second round of Wimbledon, then get obliterated by Del Potro and bomb out to Troicki in his first two summer hardcourt events, was not anywhere near as good as the Roddick of the 2009 Wimbledon, which is the version up for discussion herein (see the thread title).

Cody
10-30-2009, 02:39 AM
This should serve as proof that they've ruined what a grass court is really supposed to be. It's not that it's slow that is the problem - it's the uniform bounce. The unpredictable bounce on grass was supposed to force you to hit volleys. It's kind of ridiculous - they've made it like a second clay surface.

Where is the petition for bringing back grass.

I missed out on all the fast grass action and bringing it back now would bring so much more variety.

chalkflewup
10-30-2009, 02:53 AM
So, your analysis of a matchup is whether they are hall of famers? ok, that makes sense......not. Fool, a matchup is a matchup. Soderling beat Nadal (a hal of famer) does this mean soderling is a HOF'er...........Think about what you said for a minute. Then come back and retype another message which has got some sense behind it.

I know what I said and your interpretation of my comments are incorrect.

NamRanger
10-30-2009, 05:43 AM
1. Roddick was playing his first event back on the tour after a layoff due to a severe shoulder injury at the time.
2. Surely you realize that the Roddick of mid 2008, who proceeded to lose to Tipsarevic in the second round of Wimbledon, then get obliterated by Del Potro and bomb out to Troicki in his first two summer hardcourt events, was not anywhere near as good as the Roddick of the 2009 Wimbledon, which is the version up for discussion herein (see the thread title).




And Nadal only won by a little. It's not like it was a total blow out either.

Anaconda
10-30-2009, 06:07 AM
I know what I said and your interpretation of my comments are incorrect.

Actually my comments are correct. You're basing a matchup on who the more successful player is. Which is wrong. Tennis isn't a game of 'who the better player is wins'. It's a game on which styles promote each others games and matchups.

You forget that the likes of tsonga,gonzalez,soderling and delpotro have all overpowered Nadal in grand slams. Roddick plays a similar game to all of these players and would surely overpower Nadal on grass with his 2004 form. I think his 2009 form or heck even 2003 & 2005 would win.

Lets look at it this way, the only weakness Roddick had in 2004 (and 2009 also) was his awful return. Nadal's weakness is that his serve doesn't do anything to even the worst returners and Roddick would take advantage of short 1st and 2nd serves with 100mph forehands. Hell, roddick would even punish Nadal's serve with his forehand.

Roddick broke Federer twice (and Fed was serving at 70%). Federer has a much better serve than nadal and backs his serve up much better. On the other hand, Federer (a much better returner than Nadal) could only break roddick once in the final, which means that Roddick would break nadal at least twice and Nadal wouldn't have broken Roddick at all.

kOaMaster
10-30-2009, 08:00 AM
...
Roddick broke Federer twice (and Fed was serving at 70%). Federer has a much better serve than nadal and backs his serve up much better. On the other hand, Federer (a much better returner than Nadal) could only break roddick once in the final, which means that Roddick would break nadal at least twice and Nadal wouldn't have broken Roddick at all.

federer never lost vs davydenko, won 12 matches so far. so federer is far better than davydenko while davydenko is 3-4 vs nadal.
this clearly means federer is the superior player and should win most matches vs nadal.

right?

vive le beau jeu !
10-30-2009, 08:00 AM
rod in straights.

Anaconda
10-30-2009, 08:21 AM
federer never lost vs davydenko, won 12 matches so far. so federer is far better than davydenko while davydenko is 3-4 vs nadal.
this clearly means federer is the superior player and should win most matches vs nadal.

right?

I give up. But i will try and explain what you are saying.............

H2H don't mean that a player is better than another player, you fool. Federer is a better player than Nadal and Davydenko because of his 15GS wins. Not because of the H2H with davydenko.

Just read my post. I was using logic to determine the outcome.

kOaMaster
10-30-2009, 08:35 AM
well, that was neither logic nor true. I don't think federer is a better returner than nadal and also I don't think just taking one part from a game and replacing it in another match is how tennis works ;)

Anaconda
10-30-2009, 08:42 AM
well, that was neither logic nor true. I don't think federer is a better returner than nadal and also I don't think just taking one part from a game and replacing it in another match is how tennis works ;)

If you think that Federer doesn't have a better return than Nadal then you are a moron.

Secondly, what i was saying was actually true. Roddick would break Nadal's serve more than twice as he broke fed's serve twice, and Fed serves much better than nadal. Federer returns better than Nadal and could only manage one break. Nadal would be lucky for a break point on roddick's serve.

No way Nadal wins on tiebreaks. Roddick only chokes against Federer.

Turning Pro
10-30-2009, 11:45 AM
I actually think Roddick. His game is more built for grass. I doubt Nadal would break his serve many times if at all if they played in a big Wimbledon match.

roddick has lost plenty of 'big matches' on grass. How many big matches has nadal lost? Possibly 2, but 1 was VERY unlucky with the knee injury when cruisingi n the 4th. And Nadal has actually won wimbledon, rodddick hasn't. Nadal's record at wimby is almost unblemished.

FD3S
10-30-2009, 11:51 AM
09 Roddick, but I think it'd be closer then most people think.

Steve132
10-30-2009, 11:29 PM
roddick has lost plenty of 'big matches' on grass. How many big matches has nadal lost? Possibly 2, but 1 was VERY unlucky with the knee injury when cruisingi n the 4th. And Nadal has actually won wimbledon, rodddick hasn't. Nadal's record at wimby is almost unblemished.

Nadal has won ONE title in five appearances at Wimbledon. Is that your definition of an "unblemished" record?

By comparison, Federer has won six titles in 11 appearances and has a winning percentage of 91 per cent. Sampras won seven titles in 14 appearances with a winning percentage of 90 per cent.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 12:10 AM
Nadal has won ONE title in five appearances at Wimbledon. Is that your definition of an "unblemished" record?

By comparison, Federer has won six titles in 11 appearances and has a winning percentage of 91 per cent. Sampras won seven titles in 14 appearances with a winning percentage of 90 per cent.

You're right, I would not called his record unblemished by any stretch. However, Nadal has had greater success at this tournament than anyone else outside of Federer in the past 5 years. In any case you could ask how many titles Roddick has in how many appearances. We all know the answer to that...

This is a conversation on how Roddick and Nadal match up at Wimbledon; of course Nadal's record is nothing compared to Fed, Sampras, and other Wimbledon greats. But Nadal has an edge on Roddick based on the past five years' results at Wimbledon.

Turning Pro
10-31-2009, 03:37 AM
that's a really gd record outside of federer and sampras lol. destroys roddicks record. 1 in 5 wins, nadal has a few years to match or compare to fed, he's only played 5 times with 3 finals. everyone said it was impossible to win wimbledon a few years ago, pretty damn impressive. what is nadals percentage compared to fed in his 1st 5 wimbledons?

sh@de
10-31-2009, 03:44 AM
that's a really gd record outside of federer and sampras lol. destroys roddicks record. 1 in 5 wins, nadal has a few years to match or compare to fed, he's only played 5 times with 3 finals. everyone said it was impossible to win wimbledon a few years ago, pretty damn impressive. what is nadals percentage compared to fed in his 1st 5 wimbledons?

Why has this become comparing Fed and Nadal again???

GasquetGOAT
10-31-2009, 05:04 AM
Is this thread a joke? Obviously ARod in straight sets. See USO 09 Delpo vs Nadal, 6-2,6-2,6-2.

Turning Pro
10-31-2009, 07:24 AM
Why has this become comparing Fed and Nadal again???

look at the previous posts clown. :) And all these idiots can't even answer the questions i posed before them, OWNED!

Btw Nadal owns Roddick on ALL surfaces.

1-0 on Grass.

President
10-31-2009, 07:31 AM
Is this thread a joke? Obviously ARod in straight sets. See USO 09 Delpo vs Nadal, 6-2,6-2,6-2.

What does that have to do with it? Roddick didn't even make it to the Quarterfinals at USO; at least Nadal made the semis.

On topic, I think Roddick would pull it out in a very close 5 set match. IMO Federer played quite a bit better in Wimbledon 09 than in 08; in 08 he made some really stupid errors that probably cost him the match. Roddick's serve would have been unbreakable for Nadal; even Federer who usually owns Roddick had trouble with it that day. His serve was just on fire that tournament. Nadal is obviously a lot better on the ground, but A-Rod's serve was just too good. Eventually he would get a lucky break on Nadal's serve and it would be over.

Very close though.

NamRanger
10-31-2009, 07:38 AM
What does that have to do with it? Roddick didn't even make it to the Quarterfinals at USO; at least Nadal made the semis.

On topic, I think Roddick would pull it out in a very close 5 set match. IMO Federer played quite a bit better in Wimbledon 09 than in 08; in 08 he made some really stupid errors that probably cost him the match. Roddick's serve would have been unbreakable for Nadal; even Federer who usually owns Roddick had trouble with it that day. His serve was just on fire that tournament. Nadal is obviously a lot better on the ground, but A-Rod's serve was just too good. Eventually he would get a lucky break on Nadal's serve and it would be over.

Very close though.



I think Roddick also returned as well as he ever did. Just that Federer upped his serving to a level we've never seen before. So I think that would have helped Roddick in breaking Nadal's serve.

Steve132
10-31-2009, 08:52 AM
that's a really gd record outside of federer and sampras lol. destroys roddicks record. 1 in 5 wins, nadal has a few years to match or compare to fed, he's only played 5 times with 3 finals. everyone said it was impossible to win wimbledon a few years ago, pretty damn impressive. what is nadals percentage compared to fed in his 1st 5 wimbledons?

It may be a "really gd record", but one win in five tournaments is certainly not an "almost unblemished" one, as you originally asserted. This is true irrespective of what Roddick's record is or what Federer's was after his first five tournaments. As far as I know no one has claimed that either of those records was "almost unblemished."

If you really want to compare Nadal's Wimbledon record to Federer's, let me know when Nadal wins six titles and reaches seven consecutive finals. You can't simply project that he will accomplish these feats based on his record to date. Players are judged on the basis of what they achieve, not according to what some fan thinks that they could achieve or might achieve if ....

MaiDee
10-31-2009, 06:22 PM
Who “would”, the answer is always….. Roddick.
Real question is what he won in 2009.

T1000
10-31-2009, 06:30 PM
Roddick in straights. Nadal can't handle constant pressure

sh@de
10-31-2009, 06:34 PM
look at the previous posts clown. :) And all these idiots can't even answer the questions i posed before them, OWNED!

Btw Nadal owns Roddick on ALL surfaces.

1-0 on Grass.

I have... ok you can be my leader, which means you're a leading clown :)

ubermeyer
10-31-2009, 09:10 PM
Nadal in 4

President of Serve/Volley
10-31-2009, 09:36 PM
Roddick trying to serve and volley nowadays would get passed by Nadal all damn day!


It would work if it were 1998.

Or if Roddick had the vollleying skills of John McEnroe, then it can work anytime...

Perhaps a better question: Pat Rafter of 2001 vs Nadal of 2008? *Old Grass*... Rafter would win.

flyinghippos101
11-01-2009, 06:15 PM
Roddick's best only got him to a slam final and taking Fed to an insane five setter. Rafa's best got him a gold medal and two slams, defeating federer in five-set epics.

My breakdown:

Australian Open: Rafa takes this one. Rebound ace allows for easy clay court transition, bounces high, slower and is easier on the body, all of which are applicable to Nadal.

French Open: Rafa takes this no contest, hell, 09 Rafa would thrash Roddick on clay

Wimbledon: Rafa by a slim margin,the surface just works more for him. No longer is grass one of the lowest-bouncing surfaces nor one of the fastest. It's slow surface and high bouncing should favour Nadal's spin. Occassional weird bounces should help Nadal aswell. Volleying worked pretty well during the 09 final for Roddick, but Nadal is a beastly passer. Expect Nadal to make ridiculous passes on Roddick unless his shot prior atleast is sent long. Not to mention Rafa was atleast able to dethrone Fed, who is no schmuck on grass.

US Open: Roddick would win in a marginally tight match. Keep in mind, Rafa is still a capable hard court player but the fast US courts would make Roddick's big serves deadly. The lower bouncing pretty much nerfs the effectiveness of Nadal's spin. Roddick's movement on hard is pretty good and he is capable of ending points quick. Rafa has a tendancy to engage in long, drawn out rallies, not too good for his grandpa knees.

Steve132
11-01-2009, 10:36 PM
Roddick's best only got him to a slam final and taking Fed to an insane five setter. Rafa's best got him a gold medal and two slams, defeating federer in five-set epics.

My breakdown:

Australian Open: Rafa takes this one. Rebound ace allows for easy clay court transition, bounces high, slower and is easier on the body, all of which are applicable to Nadal.

French Open: Rafa takes this no contest, hell, 09 Rafa would thrash Roddick on clay

Wimbledon: Rafa by a slim margin,the surface just works more for him. No longer is grass one of the lowest-bouncing surfaces nor one of the fastest. It's slow surface and high bouncing should favour Nadal's spin. Occassional weird bounces should help Nadal aswell. Volleying worked pretty well during the 09 final for Roddick, but Nadal is a beastly passer. Expect Nadal to make ridiculous passes on Roddick unless his shot prior atleast is sent long. Not to mention Rafa was atleast able to dethrone Fed, who is no schmuck on grass.

US Open: Roddick would win in a marginally tight match. Keep in mind, Rafa is still a capable hard court player but the fast US courts would make Roddick's big serves deadly. The lower bouncing pretty much nerfs the effectiveness of Nadal's spin. Roddick's movement on hard is pretty good and he is capable of ending points quick. Rafa has a tendancy to engage in long, drawn out rallies, not too good for his grandpa knees.

Why would the U.S. Open be a "marginally tight match"? Roddick has a U.S. Open title, lost a final to Federer in 2006 and on three other occasions lost to the eventual champion (Hewitt 2001, Sampras 2002 and Federer again 2007). Nadal has never reached the final at Flushing Meadows or even beaten any top 10 player in the tournament.

sh@de
11-01-2009, 11:19 PM
The actual facts are Federer 6 Wimbledon titles, Nadal 1. Now go back under your rock and dream about your fantasy of Gasquet winning 6 slams. :)

lmfao yes. And many people think that the 13-6 H2H in favour of Nadal is significant compared to the fact that 15 > 6.

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 07:20 AM
Roddick's best only got him to a slam final and taking Fed to an insane five setter. Rafa's best got him a gold medal and two slams, defeating federer in five-set epics.

My breakdown:

Australian Open: Rafa takes this one. Rebound ace allows for easy clay court transition, bounces high, slower and is easier on the body, all of which are applicable to Nadal.

French Open: Rafa takes this no contest, hell, 09 Rafa would thrash Roddick on clay

Wimbledon: Rafa by a slim margin,the surface just works more for him. No longer is grass one of the lowest-bouncing surfaces nor one of the fastest. It's slow surface and high bouncing should favour Nadal's spin. Occassional weird bounces should help Nadal aswell. Volleying worked pretty well during the 09 final for Roddick, but Nadal is a beastly passer. Expect Nadal to make ridiculous passes on Roddick unless his shot prior atleast is sent long. Not to mention Rafa was atleast able to dethrone Fed, who is no schmuck on grass.

US Open: Roddick would win in a marginally tight match. Keep in mind, Rafa is still a capable hard court player but the fast US courts would make Roddick's big serves deadly. The lower bouncing pretty much nerfs the effectiveness of Nadal's spin. Roddick's movement on hard is pretty good and he is capable of ending points quick. Rafa has a tendancy to engage in long, drawn out rallies, not too good for his grandpa knees.

Pure speculation, your reasoning was pathetic as well.

TMF
11-02-2009, 07:33 AM
lmfao yes. And many people think that the 13-6 H2H in favour of Nadal is significant compared to the fact that 15 > 6.

How is it comparable. In terms of achievement? Level of difficulty? Do you really think normal human being would believe having a 13-7 record against one player is just as easy as winning 15 GS???? Only delusional say otherwise.

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Roddick's best only got him to a slam final and taking Fed to an insane five setter. Rafa's best got him a gold medal and two slams, defeating federer in five-set epics.

My breakdown:

Australian Open: Rafa takes this one. Rebound ace allows for easy clay court transition, bounces high, slower and is easier on the body, all of which are applicable to Nadal.

French Open: Rafa takes this no contest, hell, 09 Rafa would thrash Roddick on clay

Wimbledon: Rafa by a slim margin,the surface just works more for him. No longer is grass one of the lowest-bouncing surfaces nor one of the fastest. It's slow surface and high bouncing should favour Nadal's spin. Occassional weird bounces should help Nadal aswell. Volleying worked pretty well during the 09 final for Roddick, but Nadal is a beastly passer. Expect Nadal to make ridiculous passes on Roddick unless his shot prior atleast is sent long. Not to mention Rafa was atleast able to dethrone Fed, who is no schmuck on grass.

US Open: Roddick would win in a marginally tight match. Keep in mind, Rafa is still a capable hard court player but the fast US courts would make Roddick's big serves deadly. The lower bouncing pretty much nerfs the effectiveness of Nadal's spin. Roddick's movement on hard is pretty good and he is capable of ending points quick. Rafa has a tendancy to engage in long, drawn out rallies, not too good for his grandpa knees.




Nadal against Roddick at Wimbledon would probably favor Roddick if both were playing extremely well. The reason why Roddick actually matches up better against Nadal is because he will not try to play into Nadal's hands, which is exactly what Federer does most of the time. Federer likes to play alot of rallies; Roddick does not (at least on grass). The one match that they played on grass was a pretty close match where Roddick wasn't even playing close to the level that he displayed at Wimbledon this year.



I think in fact it comes down to the tiebreaks and just sheer luck at that point. And knowing Roddick's record in TBs, I think he'll come out ahead in a very tight match.

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 09:04 AM
As i said.......Roddick would break Nadal's serve more than twice seeing as Federer serves better than Nadal by a long margin. Nadal would break Roddick once at the most as Federer has a superior return than Nadal an could only manage a break (and from a sloppy servince game by a-rod).

I do agree with the person (dunno who) when they said roddick in 2004 would dominate Nadal's @ss. 2009 would be alot closer though.

And about Nadal beating Roddick at queens. Roddick busted his rotary cuff and should not have played that tournament. Nadal was in the form of his life and Roddick was playing worse than in 2006 and only lost by one break in each set.

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 09:08 AM
As i said.......Roddick would break Nadal's serve more than twice seeing as Federer serves better than Nadal by a long margin. Nadal would break Roddick once at the most as Federer has a superior return than Nadal an could only manage a break (and from a sloppy servince game by a-rod).

I do agree with the person (dunno who) when they said roddick in 2004 would dominate Nadal's @ss. 2009 would be alot closer though.

And about Nadal beating Roddick at queens. Roddick busted his rotary cuff and should not have played that tournament. Nadal was in the form of his life and Roddick was playing worse than in 2006 and only lost by one break in each set.



People seem to forget the facts though and allow their fanboyism to cloud their judgment.

Cesc Fabregas
11-02-2009, 09:10 AM
Federer can't hit through Nadal consistanly then Roddick has no chance, even 03-04 Roddick would have no chance, he hit the forehand harder but his backhand movement and return were worst. Whatever version of Roddick gets beaten by Nadal.

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 09:12 AM
[/B]


People seem to forget the facts though and allow their fanboyism to cloud their judgment.

Let them. It makes them look quite the morons that they clearly are. They just can't accept that Nadal can lose playing his best tennis.

I actually think it was an achievement taking Prime Nadal to 2 tight sets playing crap + a rotary cuff injury. I expected Roddick to get bageled...

I can accept that Safin/Hewitt/Roddick (favurites of mine) can lose playing there best tennis, hell, even Federer did against Safin in AO2005.......Stupid Nadal fans.

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 09:17 AM
Federer can't hit through Nadal consistanly then Roddick has no chance, even 03-04 Roddick would have no chance, he hit the forehand harder but his backhand movement and return were worst. Whatever version of Roddick gets beaten by Nadal.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.


Yep, because I'm pretty sure 2004 Roddick & even 2008 roddick handed Nadal beatdowns on slower surfaces than wimbledon.....

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 09:18 AM
Federer can't hit through Nadal consistanly then Roddick has no chance, even 03-04 Roddick would have no chance, he hit the forehand harder but his backhand movement and return were worst. Whatever version of Roddick gets beaten by Nadal.




No, Federer is too content to try and rally with Nadal half the time. Roddick of 03-04 especially would not make the same mistake. Nadal would have no rhythm and he'd be hard pressed to break Roddick's serve. At the USO I'd favor Roddick by alot, and at Wimbledon by a little bit.

LiveForever
11-02-2009, 09:23 AM
No, Federer is too content to try and rally with Nadal half the time. Roddick of 03-04 especially would not make the same mistake. Nadal would have no rhythm and he'd be hard pressed to break Roddick's serve. At the USO I'd favor Roddick by alot, and at Wimbledon by a little bit.
I agree. I just wish Roddick didnt go coach shopping so often in his career. Dean Goldfine and John Roddick successfully turned Roddick into a chump pusher. Roddick playing aggressive tennis is a handful for anyone, even Federer and Nadal. Federer handles big hitting much better than Nadal. I think Roddick playing his best on hardcourts and grass can give Nadal a massive fight.

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 09:27 AM
Do not get me started on Goldfine and John Roddick. If Roddick wasn't so naive to sack gilbert he wouldn't be on 1 grand slam title now.

It was thanks to Goldfine and John Roddick that A-rod lost his serve (temporarily) and his forehand (permanently) and made his weaknesses even worse and Roddick has been paying the consequences for that.

Turning Pro
11-02-2009, 10:05 AM
These are the raw facts:

Nadal is 1-0 against Roddick on grass and beaten him in straights, in a tournament where roddick has won 4 times. (If you guys say Roddick was injured or out of form, then so was Nadal at Madrid v Fed)

Nadal has 1 Wimbledon to his name, beating the GOAT and GOAT contender on grass. Roddick has done neither.

Nadal has 6 Slams to Roddick's 1. Nadal is a better GS match player than Roddick. 5-2 in GS finals with a win on every surfaces against the GOAT statistically. Destroying him 13-7 overall. Roddick has a bad GS final record, something like 1-4?

Roddick hasn't beaten Nadal since Nadal entered his prime. Roddick would get demolished. He's only taken Federer to 5 once, whilst Nadal has done it twice, where arguably he should have won in 07 barring a knee injury in the pivital 4th set. Roddick has been demolished by the GOAT contender on grass twice at wimby. Nadal has a much better record than Roddick on grass.

This surface absolutely suits Nadal, even more than Queens. Just look at the stats. He still beat Roddick on Roddicks back yard lol.

Roddick is a choke artist, especially against Fed. Nadal dosne't make many mistakes and that loopy forehand would cause all sorts of problems for 1 slam wonder Roddick.

Post hip surgery Hewitt took Roddick to 5 at this very Wimby that's just gone. And Nadal is a superior version of Hewitt.

ksbh
11-02-2009, 10:11 AM
Great post, TP! Couldn't agree more! :)

These are the raw facts:

Nadal is 1-0 against Roddick on grass and beaten him in straights, in a tournament where roddick has won 4 times. (If you guys say Roddick was injured or out of form, then so was Nadal at Madrid v Fed)

Nadal has 1 Wimbledon to his name, beating the GOAT and GOAT contender on grass. Roddick has done neither.

Nadal has 6 Slams to Roddick's 1. Nadal is a better GS match player than Roddick. 5-2 in GS finals with a win on every surfaces against the GOAT statistically. Destroying him 13-7 overall. Roddick has a bad GS final record, something like 1-4?

Roddick hasn't beaten Nadal since Nadal entered his prime. Roddick would get demolished. He's only taken Federer to 5 once, whilst Nadal has done it twice, where arguably he should have won in 07 barring a knee injury in the pivital 4th set. Roddick has been demolished by the GOAT contender on grass twice at wimby. Nadal has a much better record than Roddick on grass.

This surface absolutely suits Nadal, even more than Queens. Just look at the stats. He still beat Roddick on Roddicks back yard lol.

Roddick is a choke artist, especially against Fed. Nadal dosne't make many mistakes and that loopy forehand would cause all sorts of problems for 1 slam wonder Roddick.

Post hip surgery Hewitt took Roddick to 5 at this very Wimby that's just gone. And Nadal is a superior version of Hewitt.

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 10:55 AM
These are the raw facts:

Nadal is 1-0 against Roddick on grass and beaten him in straights, in a tournament where roddick has won 4 times. (If you guys say Roddick was injured or out of form, then so was Nadal at Madrid v Fed)

Nadal has 1 Wimbledon to his name, beating the GOAT and GOAT contender on grass. Roddick has done neither.

Nadal has 6 Slams to Roddick's 1. Nadal is a better GS match player than Roddick. 5-2 in GS finals with a win on every surfaces against the GOAT statistically. Destroying him 13-7 overall. Roddick has a bad GS final record, something like 1-4?

Roddick hasn't beaten Nadal since Nadal entered his prime. Roddick would get demolished. He's only taken Federer to 5 once, whilst Nadal has done it twice, where arguably he should have won in 07 barring a knee injury in the pivital 4th set. Roddick has been demolished by the GOAT contender on grass twice at wimby. Nadal has a much better record than Roddick on grass.

This surface absolutely suits Nadal, even more than Queens. Just look at the stats. He still beat Roddick on Roddicks back yard lol.

Roddick is a choke artist, especially against Fed. Nadal dosne't make many mistakes and that loopy forehand would cause all sorts of problems for 1 slam wonder Roddick.

Post hip surgery Hewitt took Roddick to 5 at this very Wimby that's just gone. And Nadal is a superior version of Hewitt.



Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai 2008. Roddick was injured and hadn't played a match in over a month and only lost by a break in each set at Queens.



Tennis is a game about match-ups, and if you can't understand that, you are obviously just a troll that does not play tennis at all.



Oh, and Federer beat Nadal fair and square at Wimbledon in 2007. Nadal had his chances to break Federer in the 5th but Federer staved him off with some incredibly clutch serving.



But hey, do continue to troll your mancrush for Nadal.

zambo
11-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Roddick beat Nadal in Dubai 2008. Roddick was injured and hadn't played a match in over a month and only lost by a break in each set at Queens.



Tennis is a game about match-ups, and if you can't understand that, you are obviously just a troll that does not play tennis at all.



Oh, and Federer beat Nadal fair and square at Wimbledon in 2007. Nadal had his chances to break Federer in the 5th but Federer staved him off with some incredibly clutch serving.



But hey, do continue to troll your mancrush for Nadal.

You are just in denial. No matter, truth always prevails.

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 11:01 AM
You are just in denial. No matter, truth always prevails.



You mean the truth that Nadal is doping? Thanks.

flyinghippos101
11-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Why would the U.S. Open be a "marginally tight match"? Roddick has a U.S. Open title, lost a final to Federer in 2006 and on three other occasions lost to the eventual champion (Hewitt 2001, Sampras 2002 and Federer again 2007). Nadal has never reached the final at Flushing Meadows or even beaten any top 10 player in the tournament.

By marginally tight, I meant maybe four sets.

flyinghippos101
11-02-2009, 11:02 AM
Pure speculation, your reasoning was pathetic as well.

Wow, you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that this entire thread is based on speculation.

zambo
11-02-2009, 11:03 AM
You mean the truth that Nadal is doping? Thanks.

HAHA!! More sensationalism coming from the mouth of NamRanger. Indeed very silly!

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 11:05 AM
HAHA!! More sensationalism coming from the mouth of NamRanger. Indeed very silly!



Another banned poster who will be banned soon for circumventing his old one!

Cody
11-02-2009, 11:06 AM
It's funny how people take these threads so seriously, it's cool to pondar the result but no decision can really be made.

Roddick would win..........:twisted:

zambo
11-02-2009, 11:13 AM
Another banned poster who will be banned soon for circumventing his old one!

Who am i then? Can't help yourself changing the subject since you're failing miserably?

NamRanger
11-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Who am i then? Can't help yourself changing the subject since you're failing miserably?



There is no need to guess, but it's quite obvious due to your Nadal biased views that you are indeed just another banned poster.

Cody
11-02-2009, 11:32 AM
It seems having a nadal avatar is kryponite round here.

Cesc Fabregas
11-02-2009, 11:33 AM
Anacoda=Manny Pacquiao/Hate Machine/Galactico

Anaconda
11-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Anacoda=Manny Pacquiao/Hate Machine/Galactico

Yeah, i have read the rules and i have not made anymore accounts for spamming. Nice try though. Obviously the moderators of this forum would have already picked up on the fact that i have made 3 other accounts - and would have banned me by now......

okdude1992
11-02-2009, 02:28 PM
OP are you serious? What a joke. federer DID NOT, I REPEAT DID NOT have mono at Wimbledon 2008.
It isnt called the best tennis match ever for nothing! much higher quality than the 2009 final. And federer didnt play a bad first two sets in 2008. nadal was playing at the highest level i have ever seen.

As a big roddick fan I have to say that nadal wins in 4

The-Champ
11-02-2009, 06:46 PM
And Nadal only won by a little. It's not like it was a total blow out either.

Nadal has never won by a big margin. I mean you guys claim Rafa barely escaped Söderling in Rome.


Nadal won that match in Queens with lucky shots, plus Roddick didn't feel like winning that day.

Joseph L. Barrow
11-02-2009, 08:14 PM
Nadal has never won by a big margin. I mean you guys claim Rafa barely escaped Söderling in Rome.


Nadal won that match in Queens with lucky shots, plus Roddick didn't feel like winning that day.
Your little satire is obviously false, but it is pretty well undeniable that Roddick was in nowhere near top form at that time- this was his first tournament after a layoff of several weeks due to a bad shoulder injury, and in his next three tournaments thereafter, he proceeded to lose to Tipsarevic in the second round of Wimbledon, Del Potro in a blowout at Countrywide, and Viktor Troicki at Legg Mason. The fact that Nadal in absolute peak form (had just won the French without losing a set, would proceed to win Wimbledon) won 6-4, 7-5 over a Roddick who was nowhere vaguely close to his best far from demonstrates that he would beat the best version ever to step onto a tennis court (Wimbledon '09- observe the thread title)

veroniquem
11-02-2009, 09:16 PM
There is no need to guess, but it's quite obvious due to your Nadal biased views that you are indeed just another banned poster.


Do you mean anyone who likes Nadal should get banned? How democratic :???:

zambo
11-03-2009, 07:45 AM
Yeah, i have read the rules and i have not made anymore accounts for spamming. Nice try though. Obviously the moderators of this forum would have already picked up on the fact that i have made 3 other accounts - and would have banned me by now......

Thank you for your honesty....

Although you still troll and act dumb. ;)

NamRanger
11-03-2009, 07:48 AM
Do you mean anyone who likes Nadal should get banned? How democratic :???:



Nah, it's just easy to spot multi-accounters (which is against the rules) and people who circumvent bans (which is also against the rules).

Blinkism
11-03-2009, 07:50 AM
Nah, it's just easy to spot multi-accounters (which is against the rules) and people who circumvent bans (which is also against the rules).

Haven't seen gj011 in a while

:(

Anaconda
11-03-2009, 08:46 AM
Thank you for your honesty....

Although you still troll and act dumb. ;)

I'm not trolling because i am not going off topic picking fights for no reason. I am just giving an opinion.

What do you want me to say??? I'm just saying that Roddick would beat Nadal and people like you are saying that i'm trolling. I don't mind Nadal as a player and personality but i guess if ANYONE says anything about Nadal losing then it's trolling..........

Yes, i would be trolling if i were to say: 'Nadal is Sh1t' 'Nadal is on drugs' in a thread which this content isn't needed.

And i don't 'act' dumb. I give an opinion and i give reasons for this.

Anaconda
11-03-2009, 08:49 AM
Man, what kind of a forum is this. If you go against Nadal in a related topic involving Nadal then you are trolling. If Nadal isn't your favourite then you are a troll.....

statto
11-03-2009, 08:57 AM
Nadal. Not even close either, as the standard of tennis in the '08 final was leagues ahead of the standard in '09.

Nadal leads Roddick H2H 5-2, so it's not even like Roddick is a bad match-up for Nadal.

NamRanger
11-03-2009, 09:33 AM
Nadal. Not even close either, as the standard of tennis in the '08 final was leagues ahead of the standard in '09.

Nadal leads Roddick H2H 5-2, so it's not even like Roddick is a bad match-up for Nadal.



Uh, let's be serious now. 2 matches were on clay, and Roddick stands a 0% chance of beating Nadal on that surface (short of Nadal breaking his leg or something).




Nadal leads Roddick 3-2 on non-clay surfaces, with Roddick scoring 2 wins on HCs and Nadal 2 wins on HCs. 1-0 for Nadal on grass. It's not exactly the best H2H to use as evidence IMO.

CMM
11-04-2009, 07:42 AM
Nadal. He was unstoppable back then.:cry:

shaysrebelII
11-04-2009, 09:34 AM
I'd say nadal. Nobody was gonna stop him that day. roddick showed a lot of determination too, but despite this major improvement mentally, he's still no rafa.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-04-2009, 09:46 AM
I'd say nadal. Nobody was gonna stop him that day. roddick showed a lot of determination too, but despite this major improvement mentally, he's still no rafa.

What kind of improvement has Roddick had mentally over Fed? He missed a few big set point chances there also the easy routine put away volley against Fed which SHOULD HAVE put him up 2 sets to 1 over Federer. Not good mental toughness and focus if you ask me coming from Roddick. If Roddick showed enough mental toughness that should have been his match to win. But you still have to come through at the big moments. Roddick failed to do so.. Again. Even when the majority of the match was going his way

Cesc Fabregas
11-04-2009, 09:49 AM
Look, whatever way you look at it, Nadal has too much game for Roddick.

shaysrebelII
11-04-2009, 10:16 AM
What kind of improvement has Roddick had mentally over Fed? He missed a few big set point chances there also the easy routine put away volley against Fed which SHOULD HAVE put him up 2 sets to 1 over Federer. Not good mental toughness and focus if you ask me coming from Roddick. If Roddick showed enough mental toughness that should have been his match to win. But you still have to come through at the big moments. Roddick failed to do so.. Again. Even when the majority of the match was going his way

I just meant comparatively. Sure Roddick should've had the second set, and he knew it too. However, in the past, Roddick would've just faded away after that, and Fed would've done what he usually does to Roddick. This time however, Roddick manned up, and gave Fed a run for his money. He still isn't mentally tough enough to win (as he himself showed) but I'll take that performance over most of his other ones, just because he refused to quit.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-04-2009, 10:28 AM
I just meant comparatively. Sure Roddick should've had the second set, and he knew it too. However, in the past, Roddick would've just faded away after that, and Fed would've done what he usually does to Roddick. This time however, Roddick manned up, and gave Fed a run for his money. He still isn't mentally tough enough to win (as he himself showed) but I'll take that performance over most of his other ones, just because he refused to quit.

Oh I understand what youre getting at.. Heres what had me wondering.. Now I do agree Roddick showed much more grit during his match with Fed at wimby.. So I actually was interested to see how would folllow this Wimbeldon tournament up. Sadly, he hasnt done much since Wimbeldon. I thought he would have been a major player and have some confidence going for himself at the USO.

After all these years I realize.. Maybe Roddick is a bit indeed a tad bit overrated. Why you ask? Well every year its the same old story with the internetters and fans citing Roddick will be a major player to contend with at a wimbeldon, AO or USO and every year he seems to disappoint. He just cannot get it done. Know matter if he is playing horribly for the slam, or in the case of wimbeldon playing arguably his best tennis.. HE just CANT GET IT DONE... Regardless of the circumstance. Thus why one or another he cant come through with any big tourney wins. Sometimes I think alot of is the pressure getting to Roddick. But at the same time.. It always be his game.. HE just doesnt have enough of a well rounded game.. Hes always had holes and guys like Nadal or Fed can exploit that. Maybe he should have just stuck with his old form and go for broke.. Big serve followed by the big FH. Thats his game,. He just doesnt have the all around game to go toe to toe from the baseline with guys like Fed.

TheNatural
11-04-2009, 07:39 PM
Nadal by a very wide Margin.