PDA

View Full Version : Does Roddick deserve a spot in the HOF?


Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 09:48 AM
Roddick has had a pretty solid/decent career but hardly a great one much less an all time great one in comparison with other all time greats. Obviously he will most likely go in. Since Chang was inducted it appears they have dropped the standard of going into the HOF a bit. But if they kept the requirements higher to be legit HOF (where as you should attain 3-4 slams at the very least) should Roddick make that cut if the standards were a bit higher as I think they should be to be honest. Should you really deserve to be in a HOF with 1 slam to your resume?

Blinkism
11-03-2009, 09:50 AM
It's the Hall of Fame

There's no denying Roddick's fame and name recognition around the tennis world.

zambo
11-03-2009, 09:51 AM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.

NamRanger
11-03-2009, 09:52 AM
When you consider the circumstances, I think so.

NamRanger
11-03-2009, 09:53 AM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.



On these forums he is one of the most underrated players there is. Oh, and go away Maximo.

zagor
11-03-2009, 09:57 AM
Yes,given the current HOF standard he qualifies-reached #1,won USO and DC,multiple slam finalist and great consistancy in staying in top 10.

Should HOF standards be more harsh? Maybe but given as they are,he gets in.

TMF
11-03-2009, 09:57 AM
There’s plenty of other players that are below Roddick but made the HOF. He won 1 slam, and just b/c he constantly lost to Roger doesn’t diminished all of his run at the slam. Plus, he consistently ranked high throughout his career. Excluding Roddick is ridiculous.

Perry the Platypus
11-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Are you kidding me? Given current standards he is an absolute lock, but even if the bar were raised he is a more than worthy candidate.....

8 Consecutive years in the top ten.

Reached #1 ranking

Was year end # 1 in 2003

Won the U.S. Open

3 time Wimbledon Finalist and 1 time US Open Finalist (all losses to one R. Federer)

Davis Cup Champion

Has won over 500 matches

Overall match win percentage is 76%

By any measure Roddick has had an exemplary career. Is he the GOAT - of course not, but he is absolutely a HOF worthy player.

rosenstar
11-03-2009, 10:07 AM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.

He's been in the top ten for the past 10 years almost. He's played through, and competed with two different generations of players, Not to mention one year at Number 1, a US Open title, a Davis Cup, and holds a Davis Cup record or two. He's no Nadal/Federer, but surely a hall-of-famer.

TMF
11-03-2009, 10:16 AM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.

You are hard on Roddick is just to get back at people who believe 09 Roddick would beat 08 rafa at SW19(which is plausible btw).

drakulie
11-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Based on the current standards>> hell yes.

Based on standards such as the Baseball Hall of Fame, NFL ,etc>>> hell no.

Blinkism
11-03-2009, 10:27 AM
Andres Gimeno is in the HOF, his highest ranking is #49! He does have an AO final and a Wimby semi under his belt.

And like someone said, Michael Chang made it - why shouldn't Roddick?

r2473
11-03-2009, 10:33 AM
Yes. The HOFF loves Andy too.

http://stpetecrossfit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/the-hoff.jpg

elquien
11-03-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't keep up with the HOF. I wonder who lower standard is? I am not familiar with all the players that have been inducted so I will withhold making an uninformed opinion this one time. There's a concept!

http://www.tennisfame.com/famer.aspx?pgID=867

elquien
11-03-2009, 10:52 AM
the HOFF. That is hilarious!

It depends. The HOFF in Germany that is should be in a the Berlin Wall museum or the HOFF in the US that is drunk and eating cheeseburgers off the floor?

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-03-2009, 10:58 AM
Based on the current standards>> hell yes.

Based on standards such as the Baseball Hall of Fame, NFL ,etc>>> hell no.

You make a good point.. Should tennis increase their legitimacy and standard to the level of the MLB, NFL etc?

sureshs
11-03-2009, 11:04 AM
Roddick is getting into the hall. Slam winner, World #1, Davis Cup player, fastest server, Federer nemesis - it is a done deal.

sureshs
11-03-2009, 11:05 AM
You make a good point.. Should tennis increase their legitimacy and standard to the level of the MLB, NFL etc?

How many of them were on steroids? Roddick is clean.

CMM
11-03-2009, 11:31 AM
How many of them were on steroids? Roddick is clean.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9732/andyr.jpg

Cody
11-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Are you kidding me? Given current standards he is an absolute lock, but even if the bar were raised he is a more than worthy candidate.....

8 Consecutive years in the top ten.

Reached #1 ranking

Was year end # 1 in 2003

Won the U.S. Open

3 time Wimbledon Finalist and 1 time US Open Finalist (all losses to one R. Federer)

Davis Cup Champion

Has won over 500 matches

Overall match win percentage is 76%

By any measure Roddick has had an exemplary career. Is he the GOAT - of course not, but he is absolutely a HOF worthy player.

Can't argue with those stats there :)

THUNDERVOLLEY
11-03-2009, 11:57 AM
On these forums he is one of the most underrated players there is. Oh, and go away Maximo.


zambo is Maximo? Oh, joy.

Anaconda
11-03-2009, 12:15 PM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.

Except for being a spannermonkey, what did this guy get banned for?

T1000
11-03-2009, 01:40 PM
Of course, anyone who beats the second best clay courter in the world 3 times in one year deserves it

RCizzle65
11-03-2009, 03:04 PM
Of course, anyone who beats the second best clay courter in the world 3 times in one year deserves it

Why do people post just to start arguments?

IvanAndreevich
11-03-2009, 03:05 PM
Yes 10char

Leelord337
11-03-2009, 03:08 PM
yes, he sparked a new movement making tennis "cool" in 2003+ . i mean who didn't own an andy roddick hat or have the babolat pure drive :)

Cfidave
11-03-2009, 03:27 PM
He, no doubt will make the tennis HOF, but in comparison to other members such as Agassi, Sampras, and Courier, he pales in comparison. So far he has won only one slam, and his number one ranking lasted for a whole 4 months, much of it at the very end of 2003. Those two accomplishments are comming up on 7 years ago. However, his consistency as a top 10 player can't be denied

Polaris
11-03-2009, 03:33 PM
Roddick is getting into the hall. Slam winner, World #1, Davis Cup player, fastest server, Federer nemesis - it is a done deal.

:) ........

VGP
11-03-2009, 03:41 PM
Again, another "does he/she deserve it" HOF thread....

There's definitely a singles bias, but even in the realm of singles, I don't think just because someone "only" has one slam, the standards are too low. Players are put up for consideration and votes are cast by ballot by over 100 people. A nominee has to earn over 75 percent of voter approval to be inducted into the IHOF.

For players, it's not just titles that gets you inducted, sportsmanship and ambassadorship go a long way too. Plus, there's the international team competitions.

BTW - I think this coming year is a doubles heavy year. I think great doubles teams Gigi Fernandez/Natasha Zvereva and Todd Woodbridge/Mark Woodforde are potential nominees......

Also, would the advent of coaching specialists fall under the "contributor" category?

BTW - Roddick's not just a Davis Cup player, he's a Davis Cup winner.

maddogz32
11-03-2009, 05:17 PM
i feel that anyone who wins a slam and does so well in many other tournaments such as the davis cup should be in the HOF

LiveForever
11-03-2009, 05:20 PM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.
Wow this guy got banned . I was curious to how he knew all the posters so well for only being here 3-4 days.

lawrence
11-03-2009, 06:24 PM
yes, he sparked a new movement making tennis "cool" in 2003+ . i mean who didn't own an andy roddick hat or have the babolat pure drive :)

Sorry but I was rockin the Hewitt cap and the yonex's :D

Ripper014
11-03-2009, 07:27 PM
No. He gets too much praise and is overrated.

I personally do not feel he is over-rated... more so perhaps underachieved. He was also unfortunate to play inbetween the era's of such players as Sampras, Agassis, Nadal, Murray and Federer.

The only era that may have had a deeper field would be from the mid 70's to the early 90's, personal favorite decades of tennis. A time when tennis could be played a number of different was ways and still be effective in the professional ranks.

Sorry getting a little off topic. Roddick is a great player... he had a large impact in the sport, he just was not able to come up with the big wins. I don't know for sure... but I believe he does have quite a number of tournament wins under his belt just not majors. If not for the quality of his peers he may have faired much better... he has reached to Wimbledon finals only having to face Federer and how many have defeated Federer at Wimbledon.

jaap deboeck
11-05-2009, 07:21 AM
HOF? Hmm...magnificent 2003. ARod has won 2 of the last 53 Masters events (including his worst surface, clay) and 0 of the last 24 slams.

Hall of Fame? Despite the Wimby choke, I'm sure he'll get in, though if AR gets in so too should Kafelnikov. Andy is the 9th best American of the Open era.

cuddles26
11-05-2009, 07:50 AM
I personally do not feel he is over-rated... more so perhaps underachieved. He was also unfortunate to play inbetween the era's of such players as Sampras, Agassis, Nadal, Murray and Federer.

So now Roddick played in the era of Sampras!?! ROTFL!!! That is funny. As for Roddick and Agassi they are only 12 years apart in age, and shame on Roddick and his contemporaries (other than late blooming Federer) for allowing Agassi to sort of have an era into his 30s. Unlucky to directly be in an era of Nadal?! Nadal and Roddick havent even played in a slam since 2004, and up until 2007 Nadal wasnt seriously contending in any slams outside the French (other than 06 Wimbledon). Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, and didnt reach the top 10 until the first year in 6 years Roddick ended outside the top 6 himself. So ok you have Federer.

You really think Roddick would rack up slams in the 90s when he went 1-5 vs a 30-something Agassi head to head!?

jamesblakefan#1
11-05-2009, 08:01 AM
So now Roddick played in the era of Sampras!?! ROTFL!!! That is funny. As for Roddick and Agassi they are only 12 years apart in age, and shame on Roddick and his contemporaries (other than late blooming Federer) for allowing Agassi to sort of have an era into his 30s. Unlucky to directly be in an era of Nadal?! Nadal and Roddick havent even played in a slam since 2004, and up until 2007 Nadal wasnt seriously contending in any slams outside the French (other than 06 Wimbledon). Murray is 5 years younger than Roddick, and didnt reach the top 10 until the first year in 6 years Roddick ended outside the top 6 himself. So ok you have Federer.

You really think Roddick would rack up slams in the 90s when he went 1-5 vs a 30-something Agassi head to head!?

I don't think you can just scoff over the fact that if Fed didn't play in this era, he'd have at least 3 more slams if not more. Not giving excuses - Roddick should have stepped up and won some of those matches vs Fed, this yr at Wimbledon for one - but that's just fact. Fed always seems to play his best tennis vs Roddick, and Roddick's just been unfortunate to be on the other side of the net in some cases.

Anaconda
11-05-2009, 08:30 AM
I don't think you can just scoff over the fact that if Fed didn't play in this era, he'd have at least 3 more slams if not more. Not giving excuses - Roddick should have stepped up and won some of those matches vs Fed, this yr at Wimbledon for one - but that's just fact. Fed always seems to play his best tennis vs Roddick, and Roddick's just been unfortunate to be on the other side of the net in some cases.

I agree, as much as i like roddick i feel that he is good enough to have won a few slams against Federer. He's had his chances, unfortunately he hasn't took them just yet. Still has time on his side.

The same goes for Hewitt and safin too......

tacou
11-05-2009, 08:34 AM
Roddick is not an all time great but you need to look at HOF standards. It's not an elite group, it's all the "very good" tennis players, and Roddick is very, very good.

If someone with Roddick's credentials isn't in the HOF then it becomes just a short list of the greatest players of all time, rather than a fun commemoration of some of the most entertaining and talented players of the game

tintin
11-05-2009, 08:36 AM
yeah he'll get it due to his fluke USO and Davis Cup wins

jamesblakefan#1
11-05-2009, 08:52 AM
yeah he'll get it due to his fluke USO and Davis Cup wins

How was DC a fluke? Even as a Blake fan I have to admit he's carried the US DC team for many years. Just look at his record in DC, it's up there w/ the likes of McEnroe, Ashe, etc. That's definitely worth something.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
11-05-2009, 08:52 AM
I don't think you can just scoff over the fact that if Fed didn't play in this era, he'd have at least 3 more slams if not more. Not giving excuses - Roddick should have stepped up and won some of those matches vs Fed, this yr at Wimbledon for one - but that's just fact. Fed always seems to play his best tennis vs Roddick, and Roddick's just been unfortunate to be on the other side of the net in some cases.

Possibly.. But is Roddick truly that great of player where you can just start handing him slams in another era? I assume Sampras would have relentlessly destroyed Roddick at Wimbeldon over and over. You have Goran around too. Better at wimbeldon in the mid 90s on grass than Roddick is. USO the same would probably hold true as Pete is better at the USO as well. See 2002. Though there are maybe 1 or 2 Roddick could grab but Rafter in the late 90s was no pushover there. Very solid . We saw what an Andre in his early to mid 30s was doing to Roddick. Roddick could handle a slower, older version of Andre who was still very good no doubt about that but not what he was at 25, 29, 30, and in his younger 20's. Unless you put Roddick against Andre in his down years 96-97 etc. ANd who knows what kind of matchup issues other players would pose as well

jamesblakefan#1
11-05-2009, 09:00 AM
Possibly.. But is Roddick truly that great of player where you can just start handing him slams in another era? I assume Sampras would have relentlessly destroyed Roddick at Wimbeldon over and over. You have Goran around too. Better at wimbeldon in the mid 90s on grass than Roddick is. USO the same would probably hold true as Pete is better at the USO as well. See 2002. Though there are maybe 1 or 2 Roddick could grab but Rafter in the late 90s was no pushover there. Very solid . We saw what an Andre in his early to mid 30s was doing to Roddick. Roddick could handle a slower, older version of Andre who was still very good no doubt about that but not what he was at 25, 29, 30, and in his younger 20's. Unless you put Roddick against Andre in his down years 96-97 etc. ANd who knows what kind of matchup issues other players would pose as well

I'm not saying Roddick would have 4 or 5 slams in the 90s, but I'd definitely say more than 1. 2-3 slams in the 90s wouldn't be that hard for A-Rod, IMO. The 90s outside of Pete was full of inconsistent players. Even Andre was inconsistent during the 90s. Consistency is Roddick's strength. He'd have been a contender in the 90s, right up there w/ the guys you mentioned competing for slams.

srinrajesh
11-05-2009, 09:16 AM
Davis cup is also pretty high if he was instrumental in his country winning it e.g. winning 2 singles matches in the final / SF etc

Roddick wud definitely get into the HOF currently becos it contains too many people and is a slight misnomer because they induct 1-2 players every year now ... i would say the actual HOF may have some one inducted once every 4-5 years and they can probably choose players with criteria such as
1) Multiple slam winners along with multiple finals over at least 2-3 year period
2) Davis cup winners
3) People excelling in multiple surfaces present during his / her career
4) No. 1 Ranking

Anaconda
11-05-2009, 09:27 AM
Roddick will cement himself in HOF when he wins a slam next year......

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-05-2009, 09:29 AM
To answer the OP:s question...-ABSOLUTELY!!!
He has been Federers (the same one who is considered the best ever) 1st and 2nd toughest competitor for 6-7 years!
Without Federer Roddick imo would have had 3-5 GS. I really feel sorry for Roddick at times.

boss-man-boss
11-05-2009, 09:32 AM
Possibly.. But is Roddick truly that great of player where you can just start handing him slams in another era? I assume Sampras would have relentlessly destroyed Roddick at Wimbeldon over and over. You have Goran around too. Better at wimbeldon in the mid 90s on grass than Roddick is. USO the same would probably hold true as Pete is better at the USO as well. See 2002. Though there are maybe 1 or 2 Roddick could grab but Rafter in the late 90s was no pushover there. Very solid . We saw what an Andre in his early to mid 30s was doing to Roddick. Roddick could handle a slower, older version of Andre who was still very good no doubt about that but not what he was at 25, 29, 30, and in his younger 20's. Unless you put Roddick against Andre in his down years 96-97 etc. ANd who knows what kind of matchup issues other players would pose as well

It's so obvious that you are GameSampras it's unbelievable.........

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-05-2009, 09:35 AM
It's so obvious that you are GameSampras it's unbelievable.........
How would you know??
You joined less than 5 days ago and your first post is post no 46 in a thread...smells fishy ! :twisted:

boss-man-boss
11-05-2009, 09:44 AM
How would you know??
You joined less than 5 days ago and your first post is post no 46 in a thread...smells fishy ! :twisted:

i searched the forum for a while before i became a member.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-05-2009, 09:45 AM
i searched the forum for a while before i became a member.
You did huh, ok thats great...
:twisted:

DarthMaul
11-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Of course he deserves it! He was #1, he owns the record for the fastest serve, he was consistent over the years, etc. If there wasn't the guy called Federer, he would have been a multiple grand-slam champ by now! He definately IS in the HOF.

deddied
11-05-2009, 11:33 AM
i searched the forum for a while before i became a member.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Dgpsx7
11-05-2009, 11:36 AM
I think he deserves to be in there.

AndrewD
11-05-2009, 11:39 AM
Since Chang was inducted it appears they have dropped the standard of going into the HOF a bit.

They haven't changed any of their requirements, you just don't know what they are.

First thing you should have done is look at the HOF criteria, before starting a thread questioning whether someone belongs in it or not. Going on that, Roddick most certainly does, as did Chang and Noah. Pat Cash will go in and he's achieved far less than Roddick BUT he meets the criteria.

jazzyfunkybluesy
11-05-2009, 11:44 AM
1 slam for Mr. 1 dimension are you kidding?