PDA

View Full Version : Better hardcourter: Nadal or Roddick?


aphex
03-28-2010, 02:27 AM
what do you think?

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 02:32 AM
Umm..Nadal with hes claycourter style is kind a better than Roddick on meedium-slow HC, but i'd give the edge for Roddick in fast HC(USO,Dubai,Washington,Cincy,Montreal).

P_Agony
03-28-2010, 02:38 AM
Umm..Nadal with hes claycourter style is kind a better than Roddick on meedium-slow HC, but i'd give the edge for Roddick in fast HC(USO,Dubai,Washington,Cincy,Montreal).

What about indoors? I think Nadal is actually better indoors than Roddick.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 02:41 AM
What about indoors? I think Nadal is actually better indoors than Roddick.

umm, i dont know..if there is a gap, its kinda a small..

dmt
03-28-2010, 02:43 AM
Nadal has actually won Montreal twice.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 02:44 AM
Nadal has actually won Montreal twice.

roddick has won montreal once + twice cincy..

dmt
03-28-2010, 02:48 AM
roddick has won montreal once + twice cincy..

yeah i think i can agree, roddick has reached the final at US open so he may well be better on the fast hcourts. The only problem is that Roddick's results on hcourts over the past two years haven't been very impressive, apart from the semi - final appearence in australia last year.

P_Agony
03-28-2010, 03:19 AM
yeah i think i can agree, roddick has reached the final at US open so he may well be better on the fast hcourts. The only problem is that Roddick's results on hcourts over the past two years haven't been very impressive, apart from the semi - final appearence in australia last year.

Well, he won titles here and there and just now he reached the IW final. I think the one thing Roddick craves is Wimbledon, he tried so hard over the years and came up just short at the end.

davey25
03-28-2010, 03:21 AM
Career wise? Maybe Roddick.

The last 3-4 years? Definitely Nadal. Roddick hasnt won a Masters or eached a Slam final on hard courts since summer of 2006 now. The last couple times they played on an average paced hard court Roddick got spanked.

Rhino
03-28-2010, 03:32 AM
roddick has won montreal once + twice cincy..

And Nadal has won Indian Wells twice.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 03:36 AM
And Nadal has won Indian Wells twice.

omg..thats what i said..:neutral:..roddick is better on faster ones and nadal on slower ones..

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 04:19 AM
Slight edge to Roddick.

There is no doubt that Nadal has benefited more than Roddick as far as the slowing down of the surfaces are concerned. Put Roddick on fast hard courts of the 90's or even the early 2000's in this era and Roddick would have a better C.V on hard. Nadal wouldn't have done so well if the surfaces were still fast.

Indeed, Nadal has got an extra masters title on hard than Roddick. However Roddick does have a slam final over Nadal. Roddick has also done better at the Australian Open than Nadal has at the US open.

rovex
03-28-2010, 04:24 AM
Put Roddick on fast hard courts of the 90's or even the early 2000's in this era and Roddick would have a better C.V on hard. Nadal wouldn't have done so well if the surfaces were still fast..

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Enough with the conjecture!

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 04:26 AM
Slight edge to Roddick.

There is no doubt that Nadal has benefited more than Roddick as far as the slowing down of the surfaces are concerned. Put Roddick on fast hard courts of the 90's or even the early 2000's in this era and Roddick would have a better C.V on hard. Nadal wouldn't have done so well if the surfaces were still fast.

Indeed, Nadal has got an extra masters title on hard than Roddick. However Roddick does have a slam final over Nadal. Roddick has also done better at the Australian Open than Nadal has at the US open.

Mustard
03-28-2010, 05:22 AM
Nadal has actually won Montreal twice.

Once, in 2005. His 2008 Canada win was in Toronto.

aldeayeah
03-28-2010, 05:57 AM
A prime Roddick bageled 18-year-old Nadal in USO.

2008-2009 Nadal vs 2003-2004 Roddick would have been one hell of a match.

Right now, I think Nadal is better than Roddick on slow HC and at least his equal on fast HC.

So right now, Nadal.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 05:59 AM
umm, i dont know..if there is a gap, its kinda a small..

Well Nadal has won in Madrid in 2005 and reached Paris final in 2007. Roddick has reached neither final.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 06:37 AM
Well Nadal has won in Madrid in 2005 and reached Paris final in 2007. Roddick has reached neither final.

Well that Madrid 05 draw was ridicolous..some 250 events have better draws even.

Lets put it that way - Roddick has 6 Indoor titles, Nadal 1.

JennyS
03-28-2010, 06:43 AM
Let's put it this way: if Federer has not been around, Roddick's hardcourt resume would improve much more drastically than Nadal's:

Nadal:

Without Federer, Nadal only gains one more Masters Series title and possibly two Masters Cup titles. That's it.

Roddick:

Without Federer, Roddick is likely a three time US Open Champion (2003, 2006, 2007), and a two time Australian Open finalist, possibly winning one or both of those finals. So that's an additional 2-4 more Grand Slam titles.

Also without Federer, Roddick wins at least two more Masters Series titles (2005 Cincy, 2004 Canada). He probably would have made the 2009 Miami final (over Djokovic who he owns lately).

Li Ching Yuen
03-28-2010, 06:46 AM
Roddick pushes.

Since 2009 or so.

'Nuff said.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 07:11 AM
Well that Madrid 05 draw was ridicolous..some 250 events have better draws even.

Lets put it that way - Roddick has 6 Indoor titles, Nadal 1.

Yes, insignificant titles that make 0 difference.

Nadal has a TMS, so > Roddick.

NamRanger
03-28-2010, 07:15 AM
Yes, insignificant titles that make 0 difference.

Nadal has a TMS, so > Roddick.



So according to this logic Agassi is a better grasscourt player than Andy Roddick. Gotcha.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 08:04 AM
Hmmm, Agassi won Wimbledon, he reached 3 other Semi-finals and one other final, in an era where the grass was actually fast, playing from the back of the court without a big serve. Yes, Agassi is a way better grass courter than Roddick.

What are you going to reply with? "Roddick won several Queens titles"? haha

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 08:08 AM
Hmmm, Agassi won Wimbledon, he reached 3 other Semi-finals and one other final, in an era where the grass was actually fast, playing from the back of the court without a big serve. Yes, Agassi is a way better grass courter than Roddick.

What are you going to reply with? "Roddick won several Queens titles"? haha

I hope Andy will shut you up at this years Wimbledon.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 08:10 AM
No way that the bridesmaid will push his way to a Wimbledon crown.

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 08:16 AM
No way that the bridesmaid will push his way to a Wimbledon crown.

Just like Roddick nearly pushed his way to the crown in 2003/04/05 and 09. I stopped reading this post after 7th word.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 08:20 AM
Yeah cause Roddick adopted the same game style in 2004/2005 and 2009. Since Wimbledon last year, he's been pushing, whether you like it or not, he barely hit a winner against Ljubicic in the final of Indian wells and he hit 5 winners in the three setter vs Soderling.

With this game style, he'll be out before the round of 16.

decades
03-28-2010, 08:20 AM
they each have one hard court slam. I would say now Nadal. I think the last two times they have played on HC that Nadal won in straight sets. advantage the spanish music video star.

NamRanger
03-28-2010, 08:23 AM
Hmmm, Agassi won Wimbledon, he reached 3 other Semi-finals and one other final, in an era where the grass was actually fast, playing from the back of the court without a big serve. Yes, Agassi is a way better grass courter than Roddick.

What are you going to reply with? "Roddick won several Queens titles"? haha




Don't make me laugh. Agassi's Wimbledon draws were complete jokes. His win at Wimbledon was easily the most favorable draw he could have possibly asked for, and he got the one great grasscourt player that he owned for most of his career.



Roddick has 3 finals, multiple Queens titles, and a SF. He nearly beat Federer in two of those encounters, arguably one of the greatest grasscourt players of all time. If Sampras was standing in Agassi's way in 92 there's no way Agassi even comes close to Wimbledon.



I actually dare you to go to the Former Pros and Players section and attempt to make the argument that Agassi is a better grasscourt player than Roddick. By no means is Agassi a "superior" grasscourt player than Roddick, at worst they are even.

Ocean Drive
03-28-2010, 08:31 AM
Don't make me laugh. Agassi's Wimbledon draws were complete jokes. His win at Wimbledon was easily the most favorable draw he could have possibly asked for, and he got the one great grasscourt player that he owned for most of his career.



Roddick has 3 finals, multiple Queens titles, and a SF. He nearly beat Federer in two of those encounters, arguably one of the greatest grasscourt players of all time. If Sampras was standing in Agassi's way in 92 there's no way Agassi even comes close to Wimbledon.



I actually dare you to go to the Former Pros and Players section and attempt to make the argument that Agassi is a better grasscourt player than Roddick. By no means is Agassi a "superior" grasscourt player than Roddick, at worst they are even.

I was embarrassed for you, just reading that, seriously. Wow, anyways.

The grass of the 90's and grass of the 2002 forward is a different surface, Agassi played and was highly successful on a surface that he wasn't suited to. That's why I give him the edge. Becker, Mcenroe and Ivanisevic = three quality grass courters, whether past their best or not.

Roddick can take his Queens titles and dream of winning Wimbledon in the arms of his sad girlfriend.

tintin
03-28-2010, 09:52 AM
back when Roddick was "dominating" he had Safin;Hewitt to deal with

Federer was not really in the picture and Roddick had dirtball specialists in Ferrero and Moya to toy with

the players are much better on hard courts nowadays compared to the early 2000's so I'm not sure Roddick would have won more hard court Masters Series and slams on hard courts

I mean he lost to Kohlschreiber in Australia 2 years ago
Isner at last year's USO
Ivan "AARP" Ljubicic just last week
Verdasco a few months ago
Davydenko
Del Potro owns him

egn
03-28-2010, 10:09 AM
I was embarrassed for you, just reading that, seriously. Wow, anyways.

The grass of the 90's and grass of the 2002 forward is a different surface, Agassi played and was highly successful on a surface that he wasn't suited to. That's why I give him the edge. Becker, Mcenroe and Ivanisevic = three quality grass courters, whether past their best or not.

Roddick can take his Queens titles and dream of winning Wimbledon in the arms of his sad girlfriend.

You and most of us wish we could get a date with Brooklyn Decker talk all the smack you want about his career but he gets the last laugh when he goes home and bangs Brooklyn Decker every night.

egn
03-28-2010, 10:16 AM
The two are very close but right now but the edge in my opinion still goes to Roddick.

Roddick has the edge in slams with better performances overall they both have 1 slam but Roddick has another final and has better combined records.

Nadal gets the edge in hardcourt master series with 5 of them to Roddick's 4.

However Roddick has 10 more titles so I guess atm the edge goes to Roddick

Murray Mound
03-28-2010, 10:17 AM
Roddick is
the better hardourt player.

NamRanger
03-28-2010, 10:20 AM
I was embarrassed for you, just reading that, seriously. Wow, anyways.

The grass of the 90's and grass of the 2002 forward is a different surface, Agassi played and was highly successful on a surface that he wasn't suited to. That's why I give him the edge. Becker, Mcenroe and Ivanisevic = three quality grass courters, whether past their best or not.

Roddick can take his Queens titles and dream of winning Wimbledon in the arms of his sad girlfriend.




LOL.



Agassi OWNED Becker on EVERY surface, and at EVERY slam. McEnroe was well past his prime, closing in on his 30s (if not more). We all know how bad Goran chokes. Ask anyone here who actually watches tennis, and they will tell you if Agassi ended up in the bottom half of the draw (basically on that joke half of the draw) Agassi has a 0% of winning Wimbledon that year. He had the benefit of the draw, choking opponents, and a dream year where he played exceptionally well all put together for him to be able to win that Wimbledon.


In fact, I'd say his Wimbledon title is probably one of the luckiest titles ever in the past 2 decades short of Djokovic's Australian Open title. I mean no disrespect to Agassi, but the stars perfectly aligned for him to win that title. He had a mental head case in the final who was notorious for choking, he had an old man McEnroe in the way, and he had his perennial doormat in the semi-finals. Seriously, if I gave Roddick a draw like that he would mow through it so fast it wouldn't even be funny.



Ok, and? You think Roddick wouldn't do better on a faster grass? Are you insane?

Mustard
03-28-2010, 10:25 AM
Agassi OWNED Becker on EVERY surface, and at EVERY slam.

It's not that simple. Becker repeatedly shot himself in the foot by trying to beat Agassi from the baseline. Becker has proven he can beat Agassi on the big occasion (1989 Davis Cup, 1989 Masters, 1995 Wimbledon).

Anaconda
03-28-2010, 10:27 AM
LOL.



Agassi OWNED Becker on EVERY surface, and at EVERY slam. McEnroe was well past his prime, closing in on his 30s (if not more). We all know how bad Goran chokes. Ask anyone here who actually watches tennis, and they will tell you if Agassi ended up in the bottom half of the draw (basically on that joke half of the draw) Agassi has a 0% of winning Wimbledon that year. He had the benefit of the draw, choking opponents, and a dream year where he played exceptionally well all put together for him to be able to win that Wimbledon.


In fact, I'd say his Wimbledon title is probably one of the luckiest titles ever in the past 2 decades short of Djokovic's Australian Open title. I mean no disrespect to Agassi, but the stars perfectly aligned for him to win that title. He had a mental head case in the final who was notorious for choking, he had an old man McEnroe in the way, and he had his perennial doormat in the semi-finals. Seriously, if I gave Roddick a draw like that he would mow through it so fast it wouldn't even be funny.



Ok, and? You think Roddick wouldn't do better on a faster grass? Are you insane?


Agassi's AO 2003 draw was a joke as well.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 10:36 AM
Agassi's AO 2003 draw was a joke as well.

So was Andys, lets be honest. :D..I mean to get Schuettler on SF..i still dont believe that he lost to him. :cry:

Joseph L. Barrow
03-28-2010, 11:14 AM
Looking at their careers overall, I think it's very close. They each have a Slam and (I believe) four Masters Series on hardcourts. Roddick has a lot more overall hardcourt titles and has been to two hardcourt Slam finals compared with Nadal's one, but that could be chalked up to his longer tenure on the tour. Roddick was better on hardcourts in 2003-2006, Nadal played better than Roddick did on hard for most of the 2007-2009 seasons, and Roddick has been outperforming him in the hardcourt run thus far this season. They are 2-2 against each other in hardcourt matches.

iamke55
03-28-2010, 11:23 AM
Nadal is better right now. Roddick got to the final of IW, but Nadal came much closer to beating Ljubicic. Nadal actually has won tournaments against Federer on hard courts. Nadal actually has a big forehand. And he won Australian Open, Toronto, and Indian Wells twice since Roddick's last masters title where he got an easy draw.

AM95
03-28-2010, 11:36 AM
what do you think?

is this a real question..

who has a US Open title? who doesnt?

/end thread

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 11:47 AM
Nadal has an AO title.. Roddick doesnt. And he beat Fed in the process to get it.. Whens the last time Roddick beat Roger at a slam? You would put roddick in the final vs Roger in Australian last year and Federer would have demoralized him again

Nadal isnt a great hardcourt player.. But still he takes this. Better than Roddick for sure. Roddick hasnt won a HC masters in what is it? 4 years? Its close... Both have only managed 1 HC slam. But Nadal has accomplished more overrall.. And he is actually getting better. He may actually make a USO final. The last two have been semis appearances.. Not bad at all. While Roddick is wallowing with earlier exits

NamRanger
03-28-2010, 11:49 AM
It's not that simple. Becker repeatedly shot himself in the foot by trying to beat Agassi from the baseline. Becker has proven he can beat Agassi on the big occasion (1989 Davis Cup, 1989 Masters, 1995 Wimbledon).



I know that, but if you asked Agassi who he would play out of the top grasscourt players in that stacked field that year, he would DEFINITELY pick Becker.


I mean, there was Goran, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, and other dangerous grass court floaters. And somehow Agassi managed to avoid nearly all of them.

rovex
03-28-2010, 11:51 AM
Nadal has an AO title.. Roddick doesnt. And he beat Fed in the process to get it.. Whens the last time Roddick beat Roger at a slam? You would put roddick in the final vs Roger in Australian last year and Federer would have demoralized him again

Nadal isnt a great hardcourt player.. But still he takes this. Better than Roddick for sure. Roddick hasnt won a HC masters in what is it? 4 years? Its close... Both have only managed 1 HC slam. But Nadal has accomplished more overrall.. And he is actually getting better. He may actually make a USO final. The last two have been semis appearances.. Not bad at all. While Roddick is wallowing with earlier exits

Who are you?

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 11:52 AM
LOL.



Agassi OWNED Becker on EVERY surface, and at EVERY slam. McEnroe was well past his prime, closing in on his 30s (if not more). We all know how bad Goran chokes. Ask anyone here who actually watches tennis, and they will tell you if Agassi ended up in the bottom half of the draw (basically on that joke half of the draw) Agassi has a 0% of winning Wimbledon that year. He had the benefit of the draw, choking opponents, and a dream year where he played exceptionally well all put together for him to be able to win that Wimbledon.


In fact, I'd say his Wimbledon title is probably one of the luckiest titles ever in the past 2 decades short of Djokovic's Australian Open title. I mean no disrespect to Agassi, but the stars perfectly aligned for him to win that title. He had a mental head case in the final who was notorious for choking, he had an old man McEnroe in the way, and he had his perennial doormat in the semi-finals. Seriously, if I gave Roddick a draw like that he would mow through it so fast it wouldn't even be funny.



Ok, and? You think Roddick wouldn't do better on a faster grass? Are you insane?



Well.... Agassi did reach the finals of wimbledon in another in 99.. And ran into Sampras another year.. So if not for Sampras, Andre very could have gotten 3 slam titles that year in 1999.. Andre could play on grass.. When he was at his best. He avoided some players that could beat him over the years.. But possibly very could have gotten 2-3 wimbledons anyway if not for a certain player named Sampras

Chadwixx
03-28-2010, 11:55 AM
If you watched the 2003 us open when roddick won i dont think you would put alot into it. Most of the field just wanted to go home while andy's scheduling was unaffected. He was two rounds ahead of the rest of the draw at one point, they basically handed him the title.

The Edberg
03-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Who are you?

I am "The Edberg" :)



Anyways.... lets theoretically put Roddick and Nadal in a best of 10 matches out of each slam (AO and USO)... And people really think Roddick would win the majority? I doubt that.. Unless its Pre 08 Nadal. But he didnt really hit his peak until 08. You gotta put Prime Roddick vs. Prime Nadal

Chadwixx
03-28-2010, 11:58 AM
Fast hardcourts (like dubai) roddick would win, slower hardcourts and nadal wins. The term hardcourt is very elastic in todays game.

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 12:21 PM
I am "The Edberg" :)



Anyways.... lets theoretically put Roddick and Nadal in a best of 10 matches out of each slam (AO and USO)... And people really think Roddick would win the majority? I doubt that.. Unless its Pre 08 Nadal. But he didnt really hit his peak until 08. You gotta put Prime Roddick vs. Prime Nadal

In dubai or USO 04 Roddick would blast 50 winners from his FH side to Nadal..

Federiffic
03-28-2010, 12:39 PM
It is not even close, Roddick has won true hardcourt major, Nadal has never won a major title on a true hardcourt as it was meant to be payed, which is as a fast surface, not slowed down hardcourt, clay, imitation.

rovex
03-28-2010, 12:45 PM
It's astounding to deem the ignorance in the notion that a HC can be exactly the same speed as clay. A hardcourt at the end of the day is a hardcourt. Deal with it.

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 12:51 PM
To be fair, a slow hardcourt is still closer to a fast hardcourt than a clay court is to a slow hardcourt

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 12:53 PM
To be fair, a slow hardcourt is still closer to a fast hardcourt than a clay court is to a slow hardcourt

Not true. Madrid is kind a same like IW, but with sliding.

Federiffic
03-28-2010, 12:58 PM
It's astounding to deem the ignorance in the notion that a HC can be exactly the same speed as clay. A hardcourt at the end of the day is a hardcourt. Deal with it.

It is ignorant to judge surface by composition,
and not speed and bounce. Are telling me speed and bounce has no effect on play, you are the one who is ignorant if you think that, not I.

Nadal has never won on true HC as it was meant to be, which is fast surface for aggressive play, like a real man.

Federiffic
03-28-2010, 01:03 PM
To be fair, a slow hardcourt is still closer to a fast hardcourt than a clay court is to a slow hardcourt

Not true at all, do you play tennis? have you played on slow hardcourt and fast clay before, I don't think so.

ITF publishes court speed, maybe you should review than get back to thread, and apologize, hardcourt is possible to play as slow as clay surface.

Leonidas
03-28-2010, 01:13 PM
LOL are you guys kidding me? is this a poll or a joke? Both have 1 GS on hard courts, Nadal has more Masters on hard courts and Nadal has beaten Federer more than once on hard courts. Plus, Nadal has beaten Roddick I think the last 2-3 times the played on hard courts. Do you need more evidence or are you going to go on voting for Roddick? OMG

AndyArodRoddick
03-28-2010, 01:19 PM
LOL are you guys kidding me? is this a poll or a joke? Both have 1 GS on hard courts, Nadal has more Masters on hard courts and Nadal has beaten Federer more than once on hard courts. Plus, Nadal has beaten Roddick I think the last 2-3 times the played on hard courts. Do you need more evidence or are you going to go on voting for Roddick? OMG

Get your facts right, nadalboy.
Dubai 08 brings something to your mind ?
Haha, Andy also has beaten Federer more than once on HC.
Pwned.

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 01:29 PM
Not true at all, do you play tennis? have you played on slow hardcourt and fast clay before, I don't think so.

ITF publishes court speed, maybe you should review than get back to thread, and apologize, hardcourt is possible to play as slow as clay surface.

Whoa, sir.

No, I've never played on clay courts. I guess that means I don't play tennis :???:

If you guys say I'm wrong then, I believe you. No need to get ticked off. This is an online tennis forum---let's keep things in perspective

BTW, so sorry for not reviewing ITF court speeds. How could I be so reckless?

Federiffic
03-28-2010, 01:59 PM
Whoa, sir.

No, I've never played on clay courts. I guess that means I don't play tennis :???:

If you guys say I'm wrong then, I believe you. No need to get ticked off. This is an online tennis forum---let's keep things in perspective

BTW, so sorry for not reviewing ITF court speeds. How could I be so reckless?

It is Ok, I am not mad at you, because you never play on clay or know ITF court speeds.

I hope some day you play on clay and win!!!

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 02:05 PM
It is Ok, I am not mad at you, because you never play on clay or know ITF court speeds.

I hope some day you play on clay and win!!!

I've always wanted to play on clay. I hear it's great for the knees, and my knees are getting bad. So maybe one of these days I'll branch out and play on one

aldeayeah
03-28-2010, 02:14 PM
This is stupid. Nadal may never have gotten into the finals of the USO, but that has more to do with his dumb season scheduling than his fast court prowess.

He's won Montreal, Toronto, the Olympics. Those are "true" fast hardcourts. Last year he made the final of the lightning fast Rotterdam where he took a set from Murray on an injured leg.

2003/04 Roddick was a very good hard court player, but 2008/09 Nadal was no slouch, even if he had his bad days (SF against Murray, 2008 USO).

Sangria
03-28-2010, 02:51 PM
Some of the non-fans of Nadal still dwell on the early days of his career, when admittedly he wasn't that strong on fast paced hard courts.

I really do admire his commitment to improve on these courts against the fast, big guns. I think its fair to say that Nadal has no real weakness now, other than the fact that I hope he stays healthy.

Semi-Pro
03-28-2010, 04:35 PM
Some of the non-fans of Nadal still dwell on the early days of his career, when admittedly he wasn't that strong on fast paced hard courts.

I really do admire his commitment to improve on these courts against the fast, big guns. I think its fair to say that Nadal has no real weakness now, other than the fact that I hope he stays healthy.

Three weaknesses off the top of my head:

1) Hard flat ground strokes to his forehand side.
2) Hitting the ball deep
3) Taking time away (ie. opponent taking ball right off baseline/on the rise.)

Just watch him play against Davydenko, you will see it time and time again. Del Po as well.

pjonesy
03-28-2010, 06:58 PM
Roddick had a good 2009 and has played well this year. But, lets not get carried away. Nadal has been ranked above him for years. Granted, many of his points are from clay court tournaments, but at this point Roddick has a lot more to prove to the tennis world than Nadal. Nadal just needs the US Open to complete the career Grand Slam and he is 23 (turning 24 this year). Roddick just needs to get back in the winners circle, and his best chance is still the US Open. Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon in the 2008 final and won the Aussie Open final over Federer in 2009. Roddick has not won a hardcourt Grand Slam since US Open 2003, and it is his only one. I'm afraid Roddick may end up being the Mike Tyson of tennis. When he came on the scene he looked like the he was the future of the sport. A guy who had absolutely devestating power, who looked like he would come to dominate the sport. Then along comes Federer and Roddick's power did not matter as much. Andy then starts to doubt himself and becomes extremely frustrated at not being able to beat Federer. I think he has tried very hard to improve his game, but how can you have the supreme confidence that you need to win Grand Slams when you lose 10+ straight matches to a guy that has made it to 20+ straight semifinals or better at Grand Slams. Andy will continue to see Roger over and over. His struggle with Roger has made him more vulnerable to players like Nadal, even on hardcourt. If it was just Nadal, Djokovic and Murray he had to contend with then I think he would prove to be the better player on hardcourts b/c he is capable of beating those guys and would develop more confidence against them than he has against Federer. It would be a shame that a player of Roddick's caliber may end up with just 1 Grand Slam.

Pink_Shirt
03-28-2010, 07:29 PM
Roddick, seems Nadal is great on slower indoor courts but other than that..Semi's at best.

matchmaker
03-28-2010, 07:33 PM
As in game most fit for HC: Roddick.

As in best results on HC: depends on whether you talk about slow or fast HC.

Nadal on slow, Roddick on fast.

I would still say Roddick is the better HC player for the moment.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 08:12 PM
Roddick has 18 career HC titles including 2
slams (Usopen,Cincinnati)

Nadal has 9 career HC titles including 1 slam

Thread over Roddick wins.

Commando Tennis Shorts
03-28-2010, 08:44 PM
Roddick has 18 career HC titles including 2
slams (Usopen,Cincinnati)

Nadal has 9 career HC titles including 1 slam

Thread over Roddick wins.

Since when is Cincy a Slam?

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 09:00 PM
what do you think?

Nadal, has had better success than Roddick. He has multiple hard court master series titles.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 09:13 PM
Nadal, has had better success than Roddick. He has multiple hard court master series titles.

Hmm? is that right? Roddick has double the career HC titles that Nadal has, with multiple masters series HC titles and the #1 HC Slam.

abmk
03-28-2010, 09:16 PM
its close, but I'd go with roddick ...

slow HC : nadal
fast HC: roddick

TheNatural
03-28-2010, 09:27 PM
1 HC slam + 1 HC Olympic Gold(SINGLES) +5 HC MS >1 HC slam + 4 HC MS

Furthermore, Nadal has only been competing in all these events for 6 years, and hes been injured for half of the HC slams. Roddick has been competing in all these events for 9 years and has still won less.

The Winner iS Nadal.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 09:46 PM
1 HC slam + 1 HC Olympic Gold(SINGLES) +5 HC MS >1 HC slam + 4 HC MS

Furthermore, Nadal has only been competing in all these events for 6 years, and hes been injured for half of the HC slams. Roddick has been competing in all these events for 9 years and has still won less.

The Winner iS Nadal.

Hmm, you seem to have left out quite a few of Roddick's HC titles why is that?

Roddick HC titles-18

2010
Brisbane (Outdoor/Hard)

2009
Memphis (Indoor/Hard)

2008
Beijing (Outdoor/Hard)
Dubai (Outdoor/Hard)
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2007
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)

2006
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati

2005
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2004
Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Miami
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2003
US Open (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
ATP Masters Series Canada
Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard)

2002
Memphis (Indoor/Hard)

2001
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)

Nadal HC titles-9

2009
ATP Masters Indian Wells
Australian Open

Beijing Olympics (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Canada

2007
ATP Masters Series Indian Wells

2006
Dubai (Outdoor/Hard)

2005
ATP Masters Series Madrid (Indoor/Hard)
Beijing (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Canada

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 09:47 PM
Hmm? is that right? Roddick has double the career HC titles that Nadal has, with multiple masters series HC titles and the #1 HC Slam.

There is no #1 hard court slam. The US Open is worth just as much as the Australian. Besides, how many times has Roddick been to the finals of BNP Paribas Open, Paris, or Miami?

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 10:00 PM
There is no #1 hard court slam. The US Open is worth just as much as the Australian. Besides, how many times has Roddick been to the finals of BNP Paribas Open, Paris, or Miami?

No, I think every player in the world would tell you the US open is what they consider as the pinnacle hard court slam not the AO ,AO was rebound ace for 20 years until they changed to plexicushion in 2008, I guess you must not have followed tennis very much prior to 2008, to not know the basic history of the game.

As far as the rest of your argument about Nadal making finals, it is laughable Roddick has double the HC titles period.

JoshDragon
03-28-2010, 10:47 PM
No, I think every player in the world would tell you the US open is what they consider as the pinnacle hard court slam not the AO ,AO was rebound ace for 20 years until they changed to plexicushion in 2008, I guess you must not have followed tennis very much prior to 2008, to not know the basic history of the game.

As far as the rest of your argument about Nadal making finals, it is laughable Roddick has double the HC titles period.

But Nadal has more masters series hard court titles as well as a singles Olympic gold medal.

I don't know about you but I'd much rather have an Olympic gold medal than titles in Washington and San Jose.

davey25
03-28-2010, 10:50 PM
Let's put it this way: if Federer has not been around, Roddick's hardcourt resume would improve much more drastically than Nadal's:

Nadal:

Without Federer, Nadal only gains one more Masters Series title and possibly two Masters Cup titles. That's it.

Roddick:

Without Federer, Roddick is likely a three time US Open Champion (2003, 2006, 2007), and a two time Australian Open finalist, possibly winning one or both of those finals. So that's an additional 2-4 more Grand Slam titles.

Also without Federer, Roddick wins at least two more Masters Series titles (2005 Cincy, 2004 Canada). He probably would have made the 2009 Miami final (over Djokovic who he owns lately).

I am sorry but that shouldnt be the way to judge who is better. I am sick of these "if so and so werent around" arguments. If anything this shows how Nadal quite possibly is superior to Roddick on hard courts. Roddick after all these years and meetings still cant beat Federer in a hard court slam (heck a slam anywhere). Nadal in much more limited opportunities beat Federer in a hard court slam final, and more times overall than Roddick has. If you want to make Federer the central point of the argument then in fact it clearly becomes Nadal > Roddick on hard courts.

Anyway if Federer doesnt exist Nadal gets to #1 much sooner and likely has that much more confidence and fear amongst the other players. The draws also change, and quite often he has ran into a flat hitting nemisis on the wrong day in hard court slams.

Roddick also does not "likely" win the 2007 U.S Open. He had Djokovic's number last year but he didnt back then, and Djokovic was just the stronger player at that point. How do you even know he would have beaten someone like David Ferrer who mauled him at the TMC on a faster court later that year. There is absolutely nothing about Roddick's record on hard courts that year that suggests he "likely" wins the 2007 U.S Open title without Federer. ROTFL at even thinking Roddick was ever winning last years Australian Open. Either Nadal or Verdasco would have beaten him there I am pretty sure, but Nadal 110% for sure beats him there. 2007 maybe, probably loses to Gonzalez playing the tournament of his career if he plays him any round other then maybe the final though. He even has trouble and a tough time beating Haas on various surfaces. So even if we conceded the 2006 U.S Open, which we really shouldnt since Davydenko and Blake were both threats, then you would still be at 1-2 more slams, not 2-4 more hard court slams.

Lsmkenpo
03-28-2010, 11:01 PM
But Nadal has more masters series hard court titles

Interesting way to put it, by "more" how many more do you mean, generally when someone says something ,as such, I would assume they mean more than 1.


I don't know about you but I'd much rather have an Olympic gold medal than titles in Washington and San Jose.

Yeah, but we are not talking about titles in just Washington and San Jose, we are talking about 9 additional HC titles.

TheNatural
03-28-2010, 11:05 PM
Hmm, you seem to have left out quite a few of Roddick's HC titles why is that?

Roddick HC titles-18

2010
Brisbane (Outdoor/Hard)

2009
Memphis (Indoor/Hard)

2008
Beijing (Outdoor/Hard)
Dubai (Outdoor/Hard)
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2007
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)

2006
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati

2005
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2004
Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Miami
San Jose (Indoor/Hard)

2003
US Open (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
ATP Masters Series Canada
Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard)

2002
Memphis (Indoor/Hard)

2001
Washington (Outdoor/Hard)

Nadal HC titles-9

2009
ATP Masters Indian Wells
Australian Open

Beijing Olympics (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Canada

2007
ATP Masters Series Indian Wells

2006
Dubai (Outdoor/Hard)

2005
ATP Masters Series Madrid (Indoor/Hard)
Beijing (Outdoor/Hard)
ATP Masters Series Canada



when Roddick wins another Slam/or Olympic Gold and another MS title then he will be equal with Nadal on the major HC titles, then the # of smaller HC titles become relevant in the comparison with Nadal. Until Then Nadal is well ahead.Roddick also has 3 extra years of competition, so we'd have to add the next 3 years of Nadal's achievements on HC (where Nadal will streak further ahead of Roddick on Hc) to make it a valid comparison.

davey25
03-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Well.... Agassi did reach the finals of wimbledon in another in 99.. And ran into Sampras another year.. So if not for Sampras, Andre very could have gotten 3 slam titles that year in 1999.. Andre could play on grass.. When he was at his best. He avoided some players that could beat him over the years.. But possibly very could have gotten 2-3 wimbledons anyway if not for a certain player named Sampras

If Agassi hadnt had a lucky horseshoe wedged up his *** he never wins the 99 French to begin with. He deserved a French based on his not winning 1 in the early 90s so I was glad he got it in a way, but his 99 French win was probably the 2nd luckiest slam victory in tennis history after only Capriati's 2002 Aussie Open joke title. If Sampras hadnt had an injury flare up at the last possible moment he never wins the 99 U.S Open, or for that matter if perhaps if Rafter hadnt been injured; if Moya, Rios, and Corretja, werent all in crap form that year, and if Martin had an ounce of champions mentality to close out that final. Yeah he could have won Wimbledon in 99 without Sampras, but I would say he was plenty lucky to have the year he had as it was. It would have been much more fitting if he had that kind of year in 1995 which was by far his best year of actual tennis ever. He just got a bit unlucky and couldnt quite rise to all the biggest occasions in 1995, and got incredibly lucky in 1999.

In 1993 Agassi was having a horrible year, and was in awful physical condition, so much so his coach ditched him soon after Wimbledon. It is amazing he by some miracle stretched Sampras to a 5 setter (I suspect pride more than anything) but he was still never winning that year. Courier who owned him around then and was playing the grass court event of his life would have taken him, as would have Becker considering he barely lost to Agassi and beat Agassi in 92 and 95 when Agassi was MUCH better than he was in 1993.

NamRanger is also right that he never comes close to winning Wimbledon 92 with a different draw. Yeah he beat Becker and Ivanisevic, but Becker was his easiest matchup of all the top guys, which gave Agassi a good chance to win despite Becker being by far a superior grass court player, and Ivanisevic is a huge finals choker. Had he been in the other half and played any of Ivanisevic, Sampras, Edberg, before the finals he was toast. Stich or aging Lendl might have even taken him out.

The Edberg
03-29-2010, 04:01 AM
If Agassi hadnt had a lucky horseshoe wedged up his *** he never wins the 99 French to begin with. He deserved a French based on his not winning 1 in the early 90s so I was glad he got it in a way, but his 99 French win was probably the 2nd luckiest slam victory in tennis history after only Capriati's 2002 Aussie Open joke title. If Sampras hadnt had an injury flare up at the last possible moment he never wins the 99 U.S Open, or for that matter if perhaps if Rafter hadnt been injured; if Moya, Rios, and Corretja, werent all in crap form that year, and if Martin had an ounce of champions mentality to close out that final. Yeah he could have won Wimbledon in 99 without Sampras, but I would say he was plenty lucky to have the year he had as it was. It would have been much more fitting if he had that kind of year in 1995 which was by far his best year of actual tennis ever. He just got a bit unlucky and couldnt quite rise to all the biggest occasions in 1995, and got incredibly lucky in 1999.

In 1993 Agassi was having a horrible year, and was in awful physical condition, so much so his coach ditched him soon after Wimbledon. It is amazing he by some miracle stretched Sampras to a 5 setter (I suspect pride more than anything) but he was still never winning that year. Courier who owned him around then and was playing the grass court event of his life would have taken him, as would have Becker considering he barely lost to Agassi and beat Agassi in 92 and 95 when Agassi was MUCH better than he was in 1993.

NamRanger is also right that he never comes close to winning Wimbledon 92 with a different draw. Yeah he beat Becker and Ivanisevic, but Becker was his easiest matchup of all the top guys, which gave Agassi a good chance to win despite Becker being by far a superior grass court player, and Ivanisevic is a huge finals choker. Had he been in the other half and played any of Ivanisevic, Sampras, Edberg, before the finals he was toast. Stich or aging Lendl might have even taken him out.


Why do u think Andre was lucky in 99 though? Outside of Sampras, and from the French Open all the way to the YEC, he was clearly the best player at the time. And all the way into early 2000 anyways. Beating Goran and Becker at wimbledon is no picnic. Yes Andre could match up well with them but they are still among the most memorable grass court players. Becker especially. One of all the all time greats at wimbledon. You can only play who is in front of you.. If thats the case, I guess all top greats have had their share of "luck draws" and avoiding players who have the potential of taking them. Im sure we could take some slams away from Federer or Sampras with different draws as well. What if Federer drew Nadal prior to the finals of the slams for a few of those years? Would he be sitting on this consecutive semifinals streak and 16 slams currently?


I dont feel Andre was lucky at the least. There was a REASON why he accomplished what he did at around 1999 and 2000. He upped his game, had a new attitude,became more strategically smart, got conditioned for almost the first time in his career outside of maybe 95 and always had crazy talent. Its not as though he was some untalented hack incapable of winning. He was arguably next to only a few the most "adaptable" player to ever play the game. Name the surface, Andre could play on it. Fast, slow or medium. . It wasnt just some magical alignment of the stars to make Andre the best when he returned. . If anything I feel he was unlucky with Sampras around since Pete took another Wimbledon title and a few USO's from him anyways which may have gotten him close to Emerson in the slam count.. Also.. He may have never had the mental lapse post 95 USO when Pete beat him.


You dont grab all those masters titles, win 8 slams, and the grand slam in the most polarized conditions in tennis history, being.... lucky. You do it by having a crapload of talent and being able to adapt your game to any condition imaginable. Not many players in history can say that.. Maybe a handful if that

rovex
03-29-2010, 04:04 AM
Why do u think Andre was lucky in 99 though? Outside of Sampras, and from the French Open all the way to the YEC, he was clearly the best player at the time. And all the way into early 2000 anyways. Beating Goran and Becker at wimbledon tis no picnic. Yes Andre could match up well with them but they are still among the most memorable grass court players. Becker especially. One of all the all time greats at wimbledon. You can only play who is in front of you.. If thats the case, I guess all top greats have had their share of "luck draws" and avoiding players who have the potential of taking them. Im sure we could take some slams away from Federer or Sampras with different draws as well. What if Federer drew Nadal prior to the finals of the slams for a few of those years?

Who are you?

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-29-2010, 04:06 AM
Rod and it ain't even close

deltox
03-29-2010, 04:09 AM
until Rafa does something more than he has so far, roddick by a good sized margin

The Edberg
03-29-2010, 04:16 AM
until Rafa does something more than he has so far, roddick by a good sized margin

Montreal and all those other HC masters titles, Gold Medal in the olympics on hardcourt, deep runs at the USO, beating Federer at the AO isnt enough to overshadow Roddick? Roddick has had more years active as a player.. Nadal will eventually easily surpass above and beyond Roddick. Really roddick hasnt accomplished a whole heck of alot in the last 3-4 years on hardcourts

forzamilan90
03-29-2010, 05:21 AM
tied at this point, in a few years probably nadal especially if he has one or two more HC slams

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 05:25 AM
Career wise? Maybe Roddick.

The last 3-4 years? Definitely Nadal. Roddick hasnt won a Masters or eached a Slam final on hard courts since summer of 2006 now. The last couple times they played on an average paced hard court Roddick got spanked.

I think you got it down best.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 05:27 AM
Montreal and all those other HC masters titles, Gold Medal in the olympics on hardcourt, deep runs at the USO, beating Federer at the AO isnt enough to overshadow Roddick? Roddick has had more years active as a player.. Nadal will eventually easily surpass above and beyond Roddick. Really roddick hasnt accomplished a whole heck of alot in the last 3-4 years on hardcourts

I agree with this as well. Roddick's best results on hardcourt have come up to 2006. Nadal's results from that point onwards has had better results and he's younger too. If he hasn't surpassed Roddick yet, he will soon.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 05:30 AM
I think the only thing Roddick is clearly better than Nadal is indoors. We can't even say he's better on grass.

andyroddick1
03-29-2010, 05:37 AM
Hey how bout we let these two go at it at the semis this week. They haven't played in like 2 years now and Roddick's inability to beat Federer doesn't say anything about his hard court ability. Miami seems like a fair surface cus its maybe a bit faster than Indian Wells and doesn't take spin as well, but its not as fast as Dubai.

Murray Mound
03-29-2010, 05:40 AM
It's almost 2-1 in the poll.

Leonidas
03-29-2010, 06:13 AM
Hmm? is that right? Roddick has double the career HC titles that Nadal has, with multiple masters series HC titles and the #1 HC Slam.
Think a little. Roddick has more titles on HC because he plays tournaments such as san diego, and Nadal doesn´t care about those small tournaments. Plus, nadal is younger so he´ll probably surpass roddick. Furthermore, what really counts are the GS and Master series man. And Nadal also won the GolD medal on hard courts. AND RODDICK WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOWN OFF THE COURT IN 2009 AO FINAL AGAINST FEDERER, WHILE NADAL WON IT. think a little and you´ll figure out why Nadal is way better

zagor
03-29-2010, 07:36 AM
I think the only thing Roddick is clearly better than Nadal is indoors. We can't even say he's better on grass.

Actually on grass it really isn't that close,Nadal has 3 Wimbledon finals in a row and a title while Roddick has 3 finals overall without a title even though he's 4-5 years older.Maybe if Roddick won Wimbledon last year(which he had a good chance to do)but he didn't.

On HC Roddick has a case of being equal or greater than Nadal,on grass I don't think he does.

World Beater
03-29-2010, 08:45 AM
id say that nadal has displayed a higher level of tennis than roddick on hardcourts.But roddick gets the edge due to longevity on HC..we will see.

joeri888
03-29-2010, 09:27 AM
More achieved and more consistent: Roddick

Higher peak performance: Nadal

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 10:14 AM
If Agassi hadnt had a lucky horseshoe wedged up his *** he never wins the 99 French to begin with. He deserved a French based on his not winning 1 in the early 90s so I was glad he got it in a way, but his 99 French win was probably the 2nd luckiest slam victory in tennis history after only Capriati's 2002 Aussie Open joke title. If Sampras hadnt had an injury flare up at the last possible moment he never wins the 99 U.S Open, or for that matter if perhaps if Rafter hadnt been injured; if Moya, Rios, and Corretja, werent all in crap form that year, and if Martin had an ounce of champions mentality to close out that final. Yeah he could have won Wimbledon in 99 without Sampras, but I would say he was plenty lucky to have the year he had as it was. It would have been much more fitting if he had that kind of year in 1995 which was by far his best year of actual tennis ever. He just got a bit unlucky and couldnt quite rise to all the biggest occasions in 1995, and got incredibly lucky in 1999.

In 1993 Agassi was having a horrible year, and was in awful physical condition, so much so his coach ditched him soon after Wimbledon. It is amazing he by some miracle stretched Sampras to a 5 setter (I suspect pride more than anything) but he was still never winning that year. Courier who owned him around then and was playing the grass court event of his life would have taken him, as would have Becker considering he barely lost to Agassi and beat Agassi in 92 and 95 when Agassi was MUCH better than he was in 1993.

NamRanger is also right that he never comes close to winning Wimbledon 92 with a different draw. Yeah he beat Becker and Ivanisevic, but Becker was his easiest matchup of all the top guys, which gave Agassi a good chance to win despite Becker being by far a superior grass court player, and Ivanisevic is a huge finals choker. Had he been in the other half and played any of Ivanisevic, Sampras, Edberg, before the finals he was toast. Stich or aging Lendl might have even taken him out.



Exactly, in the early 90s you were at least going to have to go through at least 2 of those guys to win Wimbledon, and if you were Agassi, you would most DEFINITELY pick Becker and Goran over the likes of Edberg, Sampras, Lendl (who was Agassi's nemesis everywhere), and heck even Stich who was playing some great tennis at that time.


I am not saying Agassi's victory at Wimbledon is not impressive, but come on, that's like having the stars aligned for him that year. What if we remove Federer, Murray, and Nadal and have Roddick play Del Potro and Djokovic to win Wimbledon? That would be exactly the same thing; impressive, but still it would be a very lucky scenario that played into Roddick's favor.

Anaconda
03-29-2010, 10:20 AM
More achieved and more consistent: Roddick

Higher peak performance: Nadal

Disagree. When Roddick was at his peak he was winning back to back masters series and followed it up with the biggest hard court title.

joeri888
03-29-2010, 10:27 AM
Disagree. When Roddick was at his peak he was winning back to back masters series and followed it up with the biggest hard court title.

yes, Roddick was great. And maybe it's hard to judge, because Nadal is more of a rally kind of player, so his level will inevitably look higher. But his final weekend of the AO he won was quite great, and so was his effortless win at the Olympics.

Hmm, maybe your right, a sick rally winning with a sick passing of course isn't a higher level than another ace.

Anaconda
03-29-2010, 10:32 AM
yes, Roddick was great. And maybe it's hard to judge, because Nadal is more of a rally kind of player, so his level will inevitably look higher. But his final weekend of the AO he won was quite great, and so was his effortless win at the Olympics.

Hmm, maybe your right, a sick rally winning with a sick passing of course isn't a higher level than another ace.

So is Gilles Simon, or heck Nadal a better player than Pete Sampras? Simply because Sampras' serve was great and won cheap points. Simon and Nadal play long rallies - it doesn't make them better with guys with great serves.

reversef
03-29-2010, 12:02 PM
Disagree. When Roddick was at his peak he was winning back to back masters series and followed it up with the biggest hard court title.
I only count 4 MS and one Slam for Roddick. Nadal: 6 MS, one Slam and the Olympics.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 12:03 PM
Roddick's peak performance on hardcourt still wouldn't beat Fed. Nadal's would.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 12:04 PM
I only count 4 MS and one Slam for Roddick. Nadal: 6 MS, one Slam and the Olympics.

Owned! Good one.

davey25
03-29-2010, 01:12 PM
Why do u think Andre was lucky in 99 though?

Lets go through his French and U.S Open wins shall we. French Open 99:

2nd round vs Clement- 2 points from losing before Clement cramps up.

4th round vs Moya- down a set and 2 breaks in the 2nd set before Moya who had a schizofrenic year in 99 completely falls apart.

Quarters- World #140 Filippini!? Talk about a dream draw.

Semis- World #30 Hrbaty? Again a total dream draw for a slam semi. Even so he still lost 6 games in a row before a rain delay which allowed him to regain momentum and win a tough 4 setter.

Finals- World #100 Medvedev? Despite Medvedev's great tournament another dream draw. Most of all though Medvedev competely outplayed Agassi the first 2+ sets and suffered one of the most enormous chokes in slam final history which wasnt even more documented only since people didnt want to spoil Agassi's special moment.

He was clearly not the best clay courter. Heck he had even lost 6-1, 7-6 to Rafter of all people in his last big clay event before the French (and Rafter was even higher in the bookies odds to win the French that year). He avoided playing anyone of note before the event other than Moya, and most of all avoided Kuerten and Rios. No way in heck he was beating either of those especialy not Kuerten. Undoubtably one of the luckiest wins in slam final history.

The U.S Open was very lucky purely since Sampras who was playing his greatest tennis ever that summer, who had beaten Agassi in straight sets 3 times in a row coming in, and who was 4-0 vs Agassi lifetime at the U.S Open, pulled out at the last minute with a big injury. The "lock" to win that years tournament was gone. That already is enough. In addition Rafter who was the other main favorite along with Agassi once Sampras was out had to retire during his 1st round match with a bad shoulder injury. In the final 2 rounds he meet Kafelnikov, a total chump vs all the top players of his era especialy in slam meetings. Then in the final he played Todd Martin, a solid slamless player in the twilight of his career, in only his 2nd and final slam final, and Martin still almost had that final but wasnt quite tough enough mentally at the end of the 4th set and fit enough thereafter. I already mentioned too that many of the contending guys from 98 like Moya, Corretja, Rios, others who had decent history vs Agassi were all having horrible years in 1999 as well, further thinning the field for Agassi.

Outside of Sampras, and from the French Open all the way to the YEC, he was clearly the best player at the time. And all the way into early 2000 anyways.

"Outside of Sampras" is a very key phrase though. The guy was clearly second fiddle in a way even during this time considering he was overall owned by his main rival, yet still was the guy who ended up with 3 of 4 slams during this stretch and the year end #1 for 1999. That already is significant enough to suggest he was somewhat lucky.

I dont feel Andre was lucky at the least. There was a REASON why he accomplished what he did at around 1999 and 2000. He upped his game, had a new attitude,became more strategically smart, got conditioned for almost the first time in his career outside of maybe 95 and always had crazy talent. Its not as though he was some untalented hack incapable of winning.

Without all the great circumstances he had in 1999 that year would have already been too late for him to manage a streak like that. He was already 29 years old and past his physical best even then. As I already mentioned the tennis he played in 1995 (an age he was still at his physical peak) was far superior to 1999, and having watched him play many times through the years I can say that without an ounce of hesitation. He simply didnt get the luck he had in 1999 in 1995, and that Sampras guy didnt miss that years pivotal slam with an injury. If anything he got a bit unlucky I feel in 1995, so yes he has been unlucky in his career too, but he was very lucky in 1999.

davey25
03-29-2010, 01:24 PM
BTW TheEdberg though I dont overall consider Federer a lucky player neccessarily since you insist on bringing him up I will say I consider his 2009 the luckiest year for a mens player since Agassi in 1999. If he had won the U.S Open I would have given him more of the benefit of doubt, but seeing as he blew that one vs a rookie slam finalist I would say his so called historic year based almost solely on the French-Wimbledon double was quite lucky. It must be something about those 09 years. Still definitely not as lucky as Agassi's 1999, but the closest to it of any years since.

bruce38
03-29-2010, 01:44 PM
BTW TheEdberg though I dont overall consider Federer a lucky player neccessarily since you insist on bringing him up I will say I consider his 2009 the luckiest year for a mens player since Agassi in 1999. If he had won the U.S Open I would have given him more of the benefit of doubt, but seeing as he blew that one vs a rookie slam finalist I would say his so called historic year based almost solely on the French-Wimbledon double was quite lucky. It must be something about those 09 years. Still definitely not as lucky as Agassi's 1999, but the closest to it of any years since.

Wow, you really are an idiot.

davey25
03-29-2010, 01:49 PM
Wow, you really are an idiot.

yes says the individual who is perhaps the biggest and most blind Federer *** kisser on the forum, who calls Seles the greatest women player ever (lol), who claims that the crowds cheering for Clijsters at last years U.S Open must be due to racism, and who says Nadal is playing his peak tennis right now. Yes I am really so concerned that you of all people are calling me an idiot. :)

The Edberg
03-29-2010, 01:52 PM
BTW TheEdberg though I dont overall consider Federer a lucky player neccessarily since you insist on bringing him up I will say I consider his 2009 the luckiest year for a mens player since Agassi in 1999. If he had won the U.S Open I would have given him more of the benefit of doubt, but seeing as he blew that one vs a rookie slam finalist I would say his so called historic year based almost solely on the French-Wimbledon double was quite lucky. It must be something about those 09 years. Still definitely not as lucky as Agassi's 1999, but the closest to it of any years since.

Im not insisting on bringing him up.. But the fact is.. Every all time great, has had his/her luxury of avoidance of certain players in slams and have had the luxury of some creampuff draws. Can't hold it against them though. You can only beat whos in front of you. Cant hold it against federer for having his share of crap draws like the AO in 2006 or avoiding the likes of Nadal for most all slam prior to the finals when in fact, he may have never made the final of slams had ran into Nadal sooner because of the matchup issue and the pressure he can put on Roger. We can't hold Sampras' joke Wimbledon 97 and 98 draws and 2000 draw against him. Pioline in the final, 2 years in a row?? A joke of a draw in 2000 prior to meeting Rafter?

Why does Andre always get scolded for some cakewalks, yet other greats never do?

Andre may have avoided sampras at certain times. But Sampras also avoided Andre at his 2 AO wins and durng a 3 year stretch when Andre was MIA thus leaving us with the likes of Kafelnikov, Rios at the top. Fed has avoided Nadal prior to slam finals for years his only kryptonite which may have cost a few AO titles or USO titles. Regardless of the surface, Federer didnt want any part of Nadal prior to a slam final for sure

swordtennis
03-29-2010, 01:56 PM
LOL @ davey25! All 4 slam finals in one year and its lucky? Wow. Maybe one could say it was a lucky year if he won all four. Which he was close to doing.
Everything was against him. The pressure to win the French and Wimbledon must have been insane. Nadal got blasted off the court exactly how you have to play to beat him consistently.

bruce38
03-29-2010, 01:58 PM
yes says the individual who is perhaps the biggest and most blind Federer *** kisser on the forum, who calls Seles the greatest women player ever (lol), who claims that the crowds cheering for Clijsters at last years U.S Open must be due to racism, and who says Nadal is playing his peak tennis right now. Yes I am really so concerned that you of all people are calling me an idiot. :)

Wow, thanks for looking me up stalker. I feel famous.

bruce38
03-29-2010, 02:01 PM
LOL @ davey25! All 4 slam finals in one year and its lucky? Wow. Maybe one could say it was a lucky year if he won all four. Which he was close to doing.
Everything was against him. The pressure to win the French and Wimbledon must have been insane. Nadal got blasted off the court exactly how you have to play to beat him consistently.

I know, what a loser. He has no clue about tennis. Probably didn't even read the Agassi bio.

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-29-2010, 02:02 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2ikveaf.png

My ******* locator!!!

The Edberg
03-29-2010, 02:07 PM
delete post

swordtennis
03-29-2010, 02:07 PM
LOL! I am forming a conclusion that many Nadal "Fans" lack a bit in understanding the game. It more about being a fan. Which is great but it kinda goes against Tennis the Sport. Its kinda weird actually becuase it gets somewhat surreal. Like it makes one question reality and ones sanity. :-) Did things happen? I know I just saw and heard this but the nadal fans are saying it did not happen? Do I need glasses? Am I getting alzhymers?

TheTruth
03-29-2010, 02:25 PM
Roddick's peak performance on hardcourt still wouldn't beat Fed. Nadal's would.

Agree. Quality, not quantity wins this poll. Those little obscure titles count, but are not indicators of greatness. Nadal's wins are always in big tournaments with all the big guys playing. Washington, U.S Claycourt? Phht!

TheTruth
03-29-2010, 02:29 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/2ikveaf.png

My ******* locator!!!

a lot of those "*******s" are Federer fans who obviously see it differently. zagor, Rhino, amongst others.

TMF
03-29-2010, 02:30 PM
Im not insisting on bringing him up.. But the fact is.. Every all time great, has had his/her luxury of avoidance of certain players in slams and have had the luxury of some creampuff draws. Can't hold it against them though. You can only beat whos in front of you. Cant hold it against federer for having his share of crap draws like the AO in 2006 or avoiding the likes of Nadal for most all slam prior to the finals when in fact, he may have never made the final of slams had ran into Nadal sooner because of the matchup issue and the pressure he can put on Roger. We can't hold Sampras' joke Wimbledon 97 and 98 draws and 2000 draw against him. Pioline in the final, 2 years in a row?? A joke of a draw in 2000 prior to meeting Rafter?

Why does Andre always get scolded for some cakewalks, yet other greats never do?

Andre may have avoided sampras at certain times. But Sampras also avoided Andre at his 2 AO wins and durng a 3 year stretch when Andre was MIA thus leaving us with the likes of Kafelnikov, Rios at the top. Fed has avoided Nadal prior to slam finals for years his only kryptonite which may have cost a few AO titles or USO titles. Regardless of the surface, Federer didnt want any part of Nadal prior to a slam final for sure

Excellent post Edberg. I was once guilty for knocking Andre on his success for being an opportunist b/c of his long career. But it’s true that every champions went through a period in their career where he was lucky or having a soft draw at the GS events. Players get injured, and upsets happened randomly. While on paper the draw may look soft, but it doesn’t necessary means it’s easier to win. In 2009 RG Rafa was knocked out, but it was the year where Federer struggled(and almost lost) the most in his career to get to the final. If we start picking which GS events were competitive and which one was weak, then we end up with judging which GS wins were a worthy one and which one were not. LOL

djokovicgonzalez2010
03-29-2010, 02:31 PM
Actually, I do see their point. He won a HC slam during a harder error. But nope, I still say Roddick by a little

TMF
03-29-2010, 02:41 PM
LOL @ davey25! All 4 slam finals in one year and its lucky? Wow. Maybe one could say it was a lucky year if he won all four. Which he was close to doing.
Everything was against him. The pressure to win the French and Wimbledon must have been insane. Nadal got blasted off the court exactly how you have to play to beat him consistently.

Yet, he praises Serena for winning so little and bashed Martina for having weak competition. That’s when many have argue the competition today is incredibly weak.

davey25
03-29-2010, 03:36 PM
Im not insisting on bringing him up.. But the fact is.. Every all time great, has had his/her luxury of avoidance of certain players in slams and have had the luxury of some creampuff draws.

Sure, but Agassi has had more of those than any other great.

Cant hold it against federer for having his share of crap draws like the AO in 2006 or avoiding the likes of Nadal for most all slam prior to the finals when in fact, he may have never made the final of slams had ran into Nadal sooner because of the matchup issue and the pressure he can put on Roger.

Yet even Federer's soft 2006 Australian Open draw, his easiest ever of any of his 16 slams, was still tougher than Agassi's draws to the title there in both 2001 and 2003.

As for your Nadal comment while I have backed Nadal's superiority over Roger in head to head you still fail majorly in that example. Roger would always be the heavy favorite vs Nadal if they met at the U.S Open on their fast hard courts. At Wimbledon Nadal wasnt even any good at all on grass yet until he first met Roger there in 2006 anyway, so the only year Roger was lucky to avoid Nadal there was 2009 and I already pointed out I consider Roger's 2009 the luckiest year for a mens player since Agassi's 1999. Except for last year Roger never got the break to avoid Nadal at the French the way Agassi was able to avoid any potential favorites in both 1990 and 1999 (yet still only capatilized once). In Australia Nadal was unable to even yet beat Hewitt in 2004 and 2005 when he was clearly pre prime and on the ascent, and was unable to avoid getting badly mauled by Gonzalez and Tsonga the next 2 times he played there in both 07 and 08. The only time Federer ever got lucky with regards to Nadal was in 2009 and I already gave my opinion on Federer's 2009 success.

We can't hold Sampras' joke Wimbledon 97 and 98 draws and 2000 draw against him. Pioline in the final, 2 years in a row??

Sampras has proved he is virtually unbeatable at Wimbledon for Becker, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Rafter, Henman, Stich, and many others so what does it matter if his draw was easier. Agassi isnt unbeatable on any surface, on grass the draw of Sampras is irrelevant. Plus he won the titles in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1999 with very tough draws each time so he has more than proven his dominance there.

Funny how you say nothing about Agassi's 2 slam final opponents in 1999, a way past his prime Medvedev and Todd Martin in the twilight of his career. Prime Pioline > past his prime Medvedev, prime Pioline = 30 year old Martin.

Why does Andre always get scolded for some cakewalks, yet other greats never do?

Since he has gotten more of them then pretty much every other great. I have yet to see you be able to refute this. Come up with a single player with 6 or more slams who had as easy of draws for half of their slams as Agassi at the 99 French, 2001 Australian, 2003 Australian, and even 1999 U.S Open then we can talk.

Andre may have avoided sampras at certain times. But Sampras also avoided Andre at his 2 AO wins and durng a 3 year stretch when Andre was MIA thus leaving us with the likes of Kafelnikov, Rios at the top.

So you admit Kafelnikov is a weak opponent? That is good to know since other than Sampras twice in Australia (once injured and having to miss the next 5 weeks, but still 3 service points from beating Agassi) the toughest remaining opponent Agassi has beaten for any of his 6 hard court slams was Kafelnikov 3 times.

It is a joke if you think for a moment Agassi was ever beating Sampras at the 94 and 97 Australian Opens. For starters Sampras was hands down better at those 2 years Australian Opens than 95 or 2000. 95 he struggled all event with the news of his beloved coaches impending death and did well to even make the final. Agassi was playing the tennis of his life and still was one serve of Sampras from going down 2 sets to 1. 2000 Sampras had an injury that forced him to miss the next 5 weeks, and which he said might have led to him defaulting the final (vs Kafelnikov of all people) had he won, yet still was up 2 sets to 1 and a minibreak at 4-3 with 2 serves to come in the 4th set tiebreak. Furthermore Agassi in early 1994 was outside the top 20, and 1997 Agassi was worthless as his year end ranking of #122 reflects.

If anyone is lucky in Australia it is Agassi to not have had the ill timed problems which sabatoged Sampras's 1995 and 2000 campaigns there, and to have 2 of the easiest draws in history to his 2001 and 2003 titles. Sampras's best tennis there in 1994 and 1997 is as good or better to anything Agassi has ever played there.

Fed has avoided Nadal prior to slam finals for years his only kryptonite which may have cost a few AO titles or USO titles. Regardless of the surface, Federer didnt want any part of Nadal prior to a slam final for sure

Again your Nadal examples dont have any element of reason other than 2009, and yes Federer's 2009 I consider quite a lucky year. The only courts Nadal has ever played Federer on faster than the U.S Open courts are the TMC in 2006 and 2007 and we see what happened in those matches. Talking about Federer being lucky to avoid Nadal at the U.S Open, an event Nadal has never made the finals of and only made the semis twice, is a complete joke. As for the Australian Open I already covered Nadal's history there the years he played from 2004-2008. If he wasnt even beating Hewitt, and was getting 7 games off of the likes of Gonzalez and Tsonga, he wasnt beating Roger there any of those years, regardless their head to head. And to say anyone in the current top 5 was "lucky" to avoid Nadal since his return last summer, given his form and showings vs top players since that point, would be plain stupid.


Anyway this thread has gotten off topic. On the original question Nadal has been hands down a better hard court player than Roddick ever since after the 2006 U.S Open. It isnt even close.

davey25
03-29-2010, 03:47 PM
Yet, he praises Serena for winning so little and bashed Martina for having weak competition. That’s when many have argue the competition today is incredibly weak.

I praise Serena for being an all time great and the greatest player of her generation. You are the one who is blinded by your Serena hateorade so tries to compare her to Graf and Navratilova when nobody was trying to do that in the first place. Serena is clearly a top 10 player all time thus an all time great, yet you get irate when anyone calls her that. Do you not consider Lendl and Connors all time greats for men by that logic (or Agassi for that matter who is called an all time great even though he isnt even top 10 all time).

I did say Navratilova's competition outside Evert was weak during her dominance from 82-86 yes. I dont dont consider Shriver and an aging Turnbull as the perennial #4 and #5 in the World as a strong field. That in no way means I was ever implying Serena is in Navratilova's league as a player.

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Roddick's peak performance on hardcourt still wouldn't beat Fed. Nadal's would.



So just because Del Potro beat Federer on a HC makes him a better HC player than Agassi, who never beat Federer at a HC slam?


I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Rippy
03-29-2010, 03:57 PM
Roddick's peak performance on hardcourt still wouldn't beat Fed. Nadal's would.

While I do think Nadal is a better hardcourter overall than Roddick, your statement is more to do with matchup that overall ability.

ReturnWinner
03-29-2010, 04:00 PM
I think Nadal is better in slow hard court, in medium they are even but Nadal is still better whereas Roddick is better on fast hard court.

anointedone
03-29-2010, 04:05 PM
So just because Del Potro beat Federer on a HC makes him a better HC player than Agassi, who never beat Federer at a HC slam?


Since Agassi's strange prime was spread out at various points from mid 1994-2002 from ages 24 to 32, lets say he was only 2 and a half years older than Federer and that in and out prime coincided with Federer from mid 2003-2011 ages almost 22 to 30. Federer now born in August 1972 instead of August 1981. In that case if Federer and Agassi had played in lets say 5 out of the 1994 U.S Open, 1995 Australian Open, 1995 U.S Open, 1999 U.S Open, 2000 Australian Open, 2001 Australian Open, 2001 U.S Open, 2002 Australian Open, and 2002 U.S Open, Agassi probably could have won 1 or 2 out of those 5. Federer still overall would have owned even prime Agassi I am pretty sure, but there are years Agassi would have had more chance of pulling off an upset win than 2004 or 2005, and he still gave pretty good matches to Federer at the U.s Open both years.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:11 PM
So just because Del Potro beat Federer on a HC makes him a better HC player than Agassi, who never beat Federer at a HC slam?


I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Well, I would like to just talk about the current generation. But if you're going to be anal and look for loopholes in this we can be here all night.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:12 PM
Since Agassi's strange prime was spread out at various points from mid 1994-2002 from ages 24 to 32, lets say he was only 2 and a half years older than Federer and that in and out prime coincided with Federer from mid 2003-2011 ages almost 22 to 30. Federer now born in August 1972 instead of August 1981. In that case if Federer and Agassi had played in lets say 5 out of the 1994 U.S Open, 1995 Australian Open, 1995 U.S Open, 1999 U.S Open, 2000 Australian Open, 2001 Australian Open, 2001 U.S Open, 2002 Australian Open, and 2002 U.S Open, Agassi probably could have won 1 or 2 out of those 5. Federer still overall would have owned even prime Agassi I am pretty sure, but there are years Agassi would have had more chance of pulling off an upset win than 2004 or 2005, and he still gave pretty good matches to Federer at the U.s Open both years.

Lol! I would have posted something similar to this but I just don't feel like frying my brain to prove a point.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:13 PM
While I do think Nadal is a better hardcourter overall than Roddick, your statement is more to do with matchup that overall ability.

Scroll back one page. I quoted a guy who posted Nadal and Roddick's best results on hardcourt events. That will answer your question.

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:15 PM
yes says the individual who is perhaps the biggest and most blind Federer *** kisser on the forum, who calls Seles the greatest women player ever (lol), who claims that the crowds cheering for Clijsters at last years U.S Open must be due to racism, and who says Nadal is playing his peak tennis right now. Yes I am really so concerned that you of all people are calling me an idiot. :)

You got a strong argument going there.

dmt
03-29-2010, 04:35 PM
Everything was against him. The pressure to win the French and Wimbledon must have been insane. Nadal got blasted off the court exactly how you have to play to beat him consistently.so if federer had played more agressively against Nadal at roland garros, he would have won in 08, 07 or 06? Yeah keep dreaming man :)

Morrissey
03-29-2010, 04:37 PM
so if federer had played more agressively against Nadal at roland garros, he would have won in 08, 07 or 06? Yeah keep dreaming man :)

In 06-07 he played pretty damn aggressive and still lost.

dmt
03-29-2010, 04:41 PM
In 06-07 he played pretty damn aggressive and still lost.

exactly. and look how agressive he is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiL7Hp-Uryw didnt work

veroniquem
03-29-2010, 04:44 PM
How could Roddick be a better player on hard court than Nadal when he is 4 years older and has won only 4 masters on hard? (vs 5 for Nadal + the Olympics). They're tie in slam titles on hard but once again Nadal is much younger. The only reason Rafa doesn't win Mickey Mouse tournaments like San Jose and Washington is because he doesn't play them. Not that Roddick is a bad player at all but it seems clear to me that he is not a better player than Nadal on any surface.

NamRanger
03-29-2010, 04:46 PM
Well, I would like to just talk about the current generation. But if you're going to be anal and look for loopholes in this we can be here all night.



I'm not being anal, I'm just being fair. Using one match-up to justify a player's prowess on HCs does not mean he is better than another player. For instance, is Soderling better than Federer on clay because he beat Nadal at the FO and Federer couldn't? Obviously not.



Nadal clearly has been the better player for the past few years on HCs, especially the slow HCs. He should be able to surpass Roddick's HC numbers by a large margin if he can maintain his form, however that might not happen with the way his body is going.

T1000
03-29-2010, 05:04 PM
Slightly to Nadal right now, only because Roddick has more titles (I don't care how small they are Roddick still had to win 5/6 matches to win them). When their careers are over it will probably be Nadal by a lot (unless he retires tomorrow)

EDIT: I dislike Nadal, almost as much as Murray

aldeayeah
03-29-2010, 05:05 PM
exactly. and look how agressive he is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiL7Hp-Uryw didnt work
At least he won a set.

The BH in 3:53 is one of my favorite Federer shots.

Wow, rewatching this video has reminded me of how good Federer (and Nadal) was in 2005... when Nadal wasn't in Federer's mind yet.

Nadal's dropshot in 4:38, disguised as a DTL forehand...

And Nadal's BH winners... and Federer's FH winners...

I want all of that back!!

bruce38
03-29-2010, 07:42 PM
exactly. and look how agressive he is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiL7Hp-Uryw didnt work

Wow that was a very different Fed in 05/06 from what he is now. If he played like that in W08 and AO09, no way Nadal wins those slams.

andyroddick1
03-30-2010, 02:38 AM
alright people. just cus roddick can't beat federer and nadal can doesn't decide who's a better hardcourter. nadal's game naturally matches up well against federer. that's like saying that djokovic is a better hard courter than roddick cus he has more wins over federer on hard courts even though roddick beat him 3 times last year and only lost a set. it is arguable who has a better resume between rafa and roddick and we don't kno who's better on hard courts right now. last year it was nadal till he got injured. rafa isn't back to that same level and roddick's gotten better so we'll see who's better when the hopefully play in the semis on friday.

bodave2
03-30-2010, 04:14 AM
I dont think Nadal will have the longevity of a Rodick but ide take a peek Nadal over a Peak Rodick.

Rippy
03-30-2010, 02:45 PM
How could Roddick be a better player on hard court than Nadal when he is 4 years older and has won only 4 masters on hard? (vs 5 for Nadal + the Olympics). They're tie in slam titles on hard but once again Nadal is much younger. The only reason Rafa doesn't win Mickey Mouse tournaments like San Jose and Washington is because he doesn't play them. Not that Roddick is a bad player at all but it seems clear to me that he is not a better player than Nadal on any surface.

Nadal is better as he has more titles as you say. Age, however, is irrelevant. Nadal may win nothing again, and Roddick could win the US Open this year. Ridiculously unlikely, but possible.

tlm
03-30-2010, 07:26 PM
Nadal is better than Roddick on any court!!!!!!!!!!!!!

maddogz32
03-30-2010, 07:32 PM
im a big rafa fan, but im still goin with roddick on this one, mainly because roddick has won US Open

andyroddick1
03-31-2010, 08:10 PM
well i guess we'll find out on friday :)

TheTruth
03-31-2010, 09:05 PM
Nadal is better than Roddick on any court!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^^^^^
This. All day long.

davey25
03-31-2010, 09:11 PM
This poll is so biased. So many people refusing to credit Nadal reasonably it appears. If this poll was clarified as the better career I could see maybe, although even there I think Nadal would have a case too, it is very close in that regard. Leaving enough room for interpretation that it might also mean their current and recent abilities on hard courts though, the poll results are a joke.

Bud
03-31-2010, 09:23 PM
This poll is so biased. So many people refusing to credit Nadal reasonably it appears. If this poll was clarified as the better career I could see maybe, although even there I think Nadal would have a case too, it is very close in that regard. Leaving enough room for interpretation that it might also mean their current and recent abilities on hard courts though, the poll results are a joke.

Agreed.

Nadal's HC resume is better than Roddick's... case closed.

quest01
03-31-2010, 09:25 PM
well i guess we'll find out on friday :)

Yes Friday will be the testament on who's the better hard courter.

TennisandMusic
03-31-2010, 09:28 PM
Hmm..they each have 1 HC major..who has more HC masters? Who beats more top players on HC? Who beats Federer on HC more often?

Morrissey
03-31-2010, 09:40 PM
Hmm..they each have 1 HC major..who has more HC masters? Who beats more top players on HC? Who beats Federer on HC more often?

That's still not enough for them to admit Nadal is better on hc. I guess he needs 5 hc slams to be that.

namelessone
03-31-2010, 09:42 PM
This poll is so biased. So many people refusing to credit Nadal reasonably it appears. If this poll was clarified as the better career I could see maybe, although even there I think Nadal would have a case too, it is very close in that regard. Leaving enough room for interpretation that it might also mean their current and recent abilities on hard courts though, the poll results are a joke.

It is because we have a lot of fresh green around and a few old users trolling around about Nadal pretending like they actually spew something worthwhile about him. When champions have a tough time,vultures come swooping in it seems. It's like a repeat of Fed's decline last year when a lot of Nadal "fans" were creating threads and posting in them,mentioning fed's demise. Likewise there is a lot of negativity regarding Nadal and his game and wouldn't you know it,most of those posters are also fed "fans".

The main reason Nadal won't get any credit is because he does not play a HC'ers game,like roddick,fed,sod,murray,djoker,davydenko,delpo and he still has a very good resume on this surface. This ****es a lot of people off. Most of the guys I have just listed have flat shots or big serves,or a combination of the two. Nadal has spinny shots and a ****** serve. He basically plays a CC'ers game on HC and still manages to win more often than not and that ****es the HC purists club,which is always funny to me,because they act like there are major differences between surfaces nowadays. The difference is still there(notice how Nadal is not that good on HC as opposed to clay and grass or how Roddick is still crappy on clay even though he is great on the other two),though they are not as big as before.

I'm glad Rafa and Roddick meet in the SF. They haven't really played eachother much over the years.

Morrissey
03-31-2010, 09:44 PM
im a big rafa fan, but im still goin with roddick on this one, mainly because roddick has won US Open

Hey Rafa fan, you know Nadal also won a hardcourt major as well and he beat Roger Federer to do it too. And he made him cry as well. Extra points for that.

Paul Murphy
03-31-2010, 10:24 PM
Roddick's a pusher now. A real shame - where is the killer forehand of 2003/2004.

fireice
03-31-2010, 10:40 PM
Roddick's a pusher now. A real shame - where is the killer forehand of 2003/2004.

I definitely wouldn't call Roddick a pusher. Many people, like you and me, are accustomed to seeing the Roddick who can only serve and hit forehands. The thing is, he's now added more to other parts of his game, while maybe slightly taking away from others. This makes his game seem less big and aggresive, but it makes him a more rounded player as a whole.

A good example of this is his serve. Roddick will never hit another 155 mph serve again in his life. He won't approach 145 every single time now, either. What he's done is he's added more spin, more accuracy, and more consistency.

cknobman
04-01-2010, 05:36 AM
This poll and all arguments in it will be settled tomorrow at 12pm or 7pm.

JennyS
04-01-2010, 05:38 AM
This poll and all arguments in it will be settled tomorrow at 12pm or 7pm.

It's the annual one hardcourt meeting per year between Roddick and Nadal! Fourth year straight!

TheNatural
04-01-2010, 06:07 AM
I think Roddick is only registering votes from USA voters.

ksbh
04-01-2010, 06:39 AM
But that's only because Roddick hasn't yet lost 8 slam finals to Federer (4 down, 4 to go). When he's done losing 8 to giant nose, watch out ... Roddick's gonna go on a tear! :)

Nadal is better than Roddick on any court!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pjonesy
04-01-2010, 08:06 AM
Lets go through his French and U.S Open wins shall we. French Open 99:

2nd round vs Clement- 2 points from losing before Clement cramps up.

4th round vs Moya- down a set and 2 breaks in the 2nd set before Moya who had a schizofrenic year in 99 completely falls apart.

Quarters- World #140 Filippini!? Talk about a dream draw.

Semis- World #30 Hrbaty? Again a total dream draw for a slam semi. Even so he still lost 6 games in a row before a rain delay which allowed him to regain momentum and win a tough 4 setter.

Finals- World #100 Medvedev? Despite Medvedev's great tournament another dream draw. Most of all though Medvedev competely outplayed Agassi the first 2+ sets and suffered one of the most enormous chokes in slam final history which wasnt even more documented only since people didnt want to spoil Agassi's special moment.

He was clearly not the best clay courter. Heck he had even lost 6-1, 7-6 to Rafter of all people in his last big clay event before the French (and Rafter was even higher in the bookies odds to win the French that year). He avoided playing anyone of note before the event other than Moya, and most of all avoided Kuerten and Rios. No way in heck he was beating either of those especialy not Kuerten. Undoubtably one of the luckiest wins in slam final history.

The U.S Open was very lucky purely since Sampras who was playing his greatest tennis ever that summer, who had beaten Agassi in straight sets 3 times in a row coming in, and who was 4-0 vs Agassi lifetime at the U.S Open, pulled out at the last minute with a big injury. The "lock" to win that years tournament was gone. That already is enough. In addition Rafter who was the other main favorite along with Agassi once Sampras was out had to retire during his 1st round match with a bad shoulder injury. In the final 2 rounds he meet Kafelnikov, a total chump vs all the top players of his era especialy in slam meetings. Then in the final he played Todd Martin, a solid slamless player in the twilight of his career, in only his 2nd and final slam final, and Martin still almost had that final but wasnt quite tough enough mentally at the end of the 4th set and fit enough thereafter. I already mentioned too that many of the contending guys from 98 like Moya, Corretja, Rios, others who had decent history vs Agassi were all having horrible years in 1999 as well, further thinning the field for Agassi.



"Outside of Sampras" is a very key phrase though. The guy was clearly second fiddle in a way even during this time considering he was overall owned by his main rival, yet still was the guy who ended up with 3 of 4 slams during this stretch and the year end #1 for 1999. That already is significant enough to suggest he was somewhat lucky.



Without all the great circumstances he had in 1999 that year would have already been too late for him to manage a streak like that. He was already 29 years old and past his physical best even then. As I already mentioned the tennis he played in 1995 (an age he was still at his physical peak) was far superior to 1999, and having watched him play many times through the years I can say that without an ounce of hesitation. He simply didnt get the luck he had in 1999 in 1995, and that Sampras guy didnt miss that years pivotal slam with an injury. If anything he got a bit unlucky I feel in 1995, so yes he has been unlucky in his career too, but he was very lucky in 1999.

You make some good points, but it is worth stating that Agassi probably COMPETED better in his 30s. He also put more work into improving his strength and conditioning along with improving his on court weaknesses. That being said, he was very lucky at the French and US Open in '99. What impressed me was his run to the final at Wimbledon. He obviously was not in Sampras' class that day, but you could tell that Agassi had rededicated himself to the game. Agassi is maybe in the top 10 male players of the open era but I could also see him rated between 10 and 15 His legacy in my opinion, is having the most influential game style of the last 20 years. How many of the top 100 players take the ball early, hit a 2HBH and are power baseliners? I think Connors(flat hitter) and Lendl(pace and topspin) created the modern power baseliner game, but Agassi put it together in a way that appealed to the masses. If you really think about it, most current players are in the mold of Agassi.

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-01-2010, 08:50 AM
Roddick's a pusher now. A real shame - where is the killer forehand of 2003/2004.

I'm so sick of hearing this, mainly b/c it's just not true.

The Roddick of nowadays would absolutely kill the 2003 Roddick. 2003 Roddick would have more winners, but also A TON of unforced errors and no strategy. 2009/2010 Roddick brings more strategy, fitness and fewer unforced errors. It wouldn't even be close.

If you truly saw Roddick play in 2003/04, then you would know that too.

BTW, if you notice, Roddick only really pulls out the spinny forehands when he doesn't need the flatter one. In fact, all this tournament Roddick has had a great forehand b/c it toes the line between aggressive and safe.

Look at Roddick's forehand against Becker. Now look at it against Almagro. They are different b/c he didn't need the big forehand against Almagro.

Now look at the matches Roddick has won versus the big matches he has lost. In the big matches he has won, he still doesn't have a ton of winners, which is fine, b/c obviously he didn't need them for those wins.

Those losses, though, tell more of the truth. You see, in those losses, he had to pull out the kitchen sink and go for broke, hence the HUGE NUMBER of winners in those losses, and also a huge number of unforced errors (just like 2003/04 Roddick).

Roddick could play like he did in 2003/04, but he would not be a better player. He would be Gonzalez (not that there's anything wrong with that :) )

I am absolutely sick of people on these boards romanticizing 2003/04 Roddick, b/c he honestly was not a better player back then than he is now. If you stick 2009/10 Roddick back in 2003/04, he comes closer to winning another Slam (and maybe even does it)

So fools on these boards who jumped on the 2003 Roddick bandwagon, it's time to see your folly.

Anaconda
04-01-2010, 09:37 AM
Yeah because Cilic and Isner would beat Roddick of 2003 in grand slams. :roll:

bolo
04-01-2010, 09:49 AM
It is because we have a lot of fresh green around and a few old users trolling around about Nadal pretending like they actually spew something worthwhile about him. When champions have a tough time,vultures come swooping in it seems. It's like a repeat of Fed's decline last year when a lot of Nadal "fans" were creating threads and posting in them,mentioning fed's demise. Likewise there is a lot of negativity regarding Nadal and his game and wouldn't you know it,most of those posters are also fed "fans".

The main reason Nadal won't get any credit is because he does not play a HC'ers game,like roddick,fed,sod,murray,djoker,davydenko,delpo and he still has a very good resume on this surface. This ****es a lot of people off. Most of the guys I have just listed have flat shots or big serves,or a combination of the two. Nadal has spinny shots and a ****** serve. He basically plays a CC'ers game on HC and still manages to win more often than not and that ****es the HC purists club,which is always funny to me,because they act like there are major differences between surfaces nowadays. The difference is still there(notice how Nadal is not that good on HC as opposed to clay and grass or how Roddick is still crappy on clay even though he is great on the other two),though they are not as big as before.

I'm glad Rafa and Roddick meet in the SF. They haven't really played eachother much over the years.

lol, yeah I get that vague impression too from some peoples posts. He's the first clay courter in the pro era to encroach on the North American/Australian surfaces, during federer's reign no less and it irks the hell out of some of these posters.

rovex
04-01-2010, 09:50 AM
Well, we will see tomorrow! :twisted:

dcdoorknob
04-01-2010, 10:23 AM
Yeah because Cilic and Isner would beat Roddick of 2003 in grand slams. :roll:

Cilic is a top 10 player now and Roddick was clearly not 100% in that match, and '03 Roddick did lose to Schettler at the AO.

As for Isner, that loss reminded me alot of Roddick's loss to Joachim Johansson at the USOpen in '04. Similar matches. In both cases Roddick lost a very tight match against someone who was serving as big as he was.

I agree with commando, people romanticize '03-'05 Roddick too much. What's funny is back then people bashed him for being a mindless ball basher. Now he's worked hard on his game to add some needed variety and patience and gets slammed for being a pusher.

I would agree with the suggestion that there should be a happy medium somewhere in the middle for him, but at the same time what he's doing now is clearly still yielding some pretty solid results for him overall.

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-01-2010, 10:58 AM
Yeah because Cilic and Isner would beat Roddick of 2003 in grand slams. :roll:

Most definitely

abmk
04-01-2010, 11:02 AM
Nadal has spinny shots and a ****** serve. He basically plays a CC'ers game on HC and still manages to win more often than not and that ****es the HC purists club,which is always funny to me,because they act like there are major differences between surfaces nowadays.

I dunno again why people say nadal has a '******'/'bad' serve. Its a myth. His 1st serve is VERY good. 2nd serve is attackable though. Still overall it is more than a decent serve ...

Also another myth regarding is federer having that much of trouble with rafa's serve. He returns his 1st serve fairly well ( wimby 2008 was more an exception than the norm which perhaps leads to this sort of an opinion)

I watched federer-nadal at TMC 2007 SF and nadal-nalby in paris and madrid in the very same year , all 3 indoor courts of similar speed recently again and nalbandian had even more trouble returning rafa's 1st serve than fed...

The difference though was nalby absolutely clobbered his 2nd serve left right, which federer doesn't / can't do that well ....

David L
04-01-2010, 11:47 AM
I dunno again why people say nadal has a '******'/'bad' serve. Its a myth. His 1st serve is VERY good. 2nd serve is attackable though. Still overall it is more than a decent serve ...

Also another myth regarding is federer having that much of trouble with rafa's serve. He returns his 1st serve fairly well ( wimby 2008 was more an exception than the norm which perhaps leads to this sort of an opinion)

I watched federer-nadal at TMC 2007 SF and nadal-nalby in paris and madrid in the very same year , all 3 indoor courts of similar speed recently again and nalbandian had even more trouble returning rafa's 1st serve than fed...

The difference though was nalby absolutely clobbered his 2nd serve left right, which federer doesn't / can't do that well ....
Yes, Nadal does not have a bad serve. It's actually pretty good and is a key aspect of his game, coming from the left wing.

The challenge for Federer and all other right-handed players is that it swings in the opposite direction to that which they are used to. Nadal's serve is an important part of his success against Federer because of this. It's not that Federer has trouble returning it. It's more that it's an additional challenge returning a serve that swings left, and avoiding giving Nadal the strong advantage on the second shot, particularly on the ad side.

slow_duster
04-01-2010, 02:50 PM
Roddick all the way!!!!!!

decades
04-01-2010, 02:52 PM
we will soon find out no?

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Delete post.

Sorry, didn't want to spoil. Someone will soon enough anyway, though, I bet.

Cesc Fabregas
04-02-2010, 11:35 AM
OMG, Roddick beat Nadal! Lets all cream our pants!!!

GasquetGOAT
04-02-2010, 11:38 AM
Looks like the majority of voters are correct.

TMF
04-02-2010, 11:40 AM
Well, the result of the match today just answer the question for many of you in here.

Jchurch
04-02-2010, 11:51 AM
Andy Roddick > Rafael Nadal

Semi-Pro
04-02-2010, 12:21 PM
Fast and slow hard court, Andy does it all : -)

cknobman
04-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Nadal took the beating he deserved. Nice to see Andy wake up and smell the sweetsauce, bout damn time he hit some power forehands.

Lsmkenpo
04-02-2010, 12:35 PM
He now has a winning H2H against Nadal and Djokovic on HC, he is better than both on HC, there is no doubt about it now.

Murray Mound
04-02-2010, 12:36 PM
Recount!!!

Tchocky
04-02-2010, 01:05 PM
I don't know who's better but Andy has a lot more hardcourt titles than Rafa.

Wolland
04-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Well, I find Nadal to be a more complete player than Roddick. However, at this point, I'd say that Andy is a better player on hard courts. But if Nadal manages to put himself together, he will own Roddick even on hard courts.

okdude1992
04-02-2010, 01:22 PM
nadal has more ms on hard + the olympics, and the same number of hc slams. that's why he's better. the 9 extra titles of roddick don't mean much as most were small 250 tournaments which nadal often doesn't play.

very close comparison at this point in their careers but gotta go with nadal

edit: at the moment roddick is playing better hardcourt tennis than nadal as evidenced by his win today

okdude1992
04-02-2010, 01:29 PM
Well, the result of the match today just answer the question for many of you in here.

not at all. the question is: who has had better results on hard courts over there respective careers. not: who played a better match today

Rhino
04-02-2010, 03:08 PM
not at all. the question is: who has had better results on hard courts over there respective careers. not: who played a better match today

Exactly but that isn't how this forum works.

Talk tennis forum posters notoriously have about a one or two tournament memory.

zagor
04-02-2010, 03:13 PM
Well, the result of the match today just answer the question for many of you in here.

Not really,no.

RoddickAce
04-02-2010, 03:18 PM
Exactly but that isn't how this forum works.

Talk tennis forum posters notoriously have about a one or two tournament memory.

Similar to how people claimed that Nadal was a better grasscourt player than Federer after Nadal beat Fed at Wimbledon O_O.

Atherton2003
04-02-2010, 03:20 PM
I'd say "the picker" is now a better hardcourt player than "the scratcher"

Anaconda
04-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Not really,no.

Hey man wassup. Roddick actually played aggressive tennis. Like you were talking about yesterday. Mixing up with S&V on 2nd serve.

Yeah let's not jump to conclusions; Nadal is technically a better player on hard courts no matter the H2H.

Atherton2003
04-02-2010, 03:36 PM
Nadal's wisdom tooth hurt and he was searching for Shakira - that's why he lost....and he felt sorry for Andy...so he tanked the match.

zagor
04-02-2010, 03:38 PM
Hey man wassup. Roddick actually played aggressive tennis. Like you were talking about yesterday. Mixing up with S&V on 2nd serve.

Yeah let's not jump to conclusions; Nadal is technically a better player on hard courts no matter the H2H.

Yup,it was great to see Roddick adjust the way he did after losing the 1st set.That game in 2nd set in which he broke Nadal to love with some monster FHs was just amazing,came out of nowhere,I don't remembe the last time he hit so many big FHs in a row in one game.

Mixing it up with S&V(what Murray did at AO)on the second serve(first one is too fast,he can't get to the net in time)also worked very well.

Now if only Roddick can get into his thick head to play the way he did in 2nd and 3d set from the start of the match when he's facing another top player he might just win a second slam.

Anaconda
04-02-2010, 03:41 PM
Yup,it was great to see Roddick adjust the way he did after losing the 1st set.That game in 2nd set in which he broke Nadal to love with some monster FHs was just amazing,came out of nowhere,I don't remembe the last time he hit so many big FHs in a row in one game.

Mixing it up with S&V(what Murray did at AO)on the second serve(first one is too fast,he can't get to the net in time)also worked very well.

Now if only Roddick can get into his thick head to play the way he did in 2nd and 3d set from the start of the match when he's facing another top player he might just win a second slam.

I told posters Cesc Fabregas and Veroniquem that Roddick had the correct weapons to win. They wouldn't listen and said 'Nadal is better outside the serve'.

Anyway Roddick's FH is kind of like the 'solar eclipse'. Rarely comes around but when it does it's awsome to watch :)

davey25
04-02-2010, 03:45 PM
Although I was impressed with Roddick today I am not sure where a 2nd slam would come. On hard courts Nadal is not the guy to beat anyway. A hard court slam would be very tough with Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro all around. Granted all 4 of those seem a mess right now. However you know the crappy Federer of Indian Wells and Miami wont show up the hard court Slams, it never does. Djokovic always seems to perform well at the hard court Slams and will have his act together again soon probably. Murray, well he is a question mark, but he is very tough for Roddick to beat on hard courts if they do meet. Del Potro will be back, just probably not back in top form by the French Open is all.

As for Wimbledon even if Nadal doesnt recover Federer is clearly the guy to beat there still.

deltox
04-02-2010, 03:55 PM
Although I was impressed with Roddick today I am not sure where a 2nd slam would come. On hard courts Nadal is not the guy to beat anyway. A hard court slam would be very tough with Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro all around. Granted all 4 of those seem a mess right now. However you know the crappy Federer of Indian Wells and Miami wont show up the hard court Slams, it never does. Djokovic always seems to perform well at the hard court Slams and will have his act together again soon probably. Murray, well he is a question mark, but he is very tough for Roddick to beat on hard courts if they do meet. Del Potro will be back, just probably not back in top form by the French Open is all.

As for Wimbledon even if Nadal doesnt recover Federer is clearly the guy to beat there still.

the perfect scenario would be, roddick at wimbledon with federer meeting an on fire soderling or jmdp, or murray or nalby etc. without fed in the mix roddicks chances at wimbledon at greatly improved

Mr_Shiver
04-02-2010, 04:00 PM
I'm glad Andy hasn't completly forgotten how to flatten out and blast a forehand. It feels like its been years since I've seen that. Anyway, as for the question:

If we disregard career and h2h results, play the match in a vacuum (ie no extraneous weather factors), with both players performing at their peak....I have to go with Nadal. That is tough to do being a Roddick fan, but looking at their strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, and how they match up, Nadal appears to have an edge.

Of course in reality you have numerous variables to take into account when trying to assess performance. Things such as weather, court speed, injury, not having your bottles lined up correctly, motivation, and just the plain reality of either player being in the zone or having an off day.

davey25
04-02-2010, 04:00 PM
the perfect scenario would be, roddick at wimbledon with federer meeting an on fire soderling or jmdp, or murray or nalby etc. without fed in the mix roddicks chances at wimbledon at greatly improved

I agree Roddick's best chance is for someone else to take Federer out at Wimbledon. However it probably isnt going to come from the guys you listed.

Forget JMDP, JMDP will NEVER beat someone like Federer on grass. That is one surface it is pretty safe to say Del Potro will never be much on. Actually forget Nalbandian ever beating Federer on grass either, that will never happen. Nalbandian's worst surface by far is grass, Federer would take him to the woodshed if they ever meet there. Murray cant even beat Federer in a hard court slam, so not sure how he would do it on grass.

I think the best chances to take Federer out at Wimbledon for Roddick are:

-Karlovic having an unreal serving day. Usually Federer wins all the breakers anyway but if they go to breakers it can always be a crapshoot.

-Soderling maybe. Yeah I know Federer owns him, but if he met Federer in a 3rd or 4th round and got hot he could do it maybe. Grass should be a very good surface for him.

Not sure who else. There arent many who can even push Federer on grass. It sure wont be Nalbandian or Del Potro doing it on grass though, no way.

NamRanger
04-02-2010, 04:12 PM
Although I was impressed with Roddick today I am not sure where a 2nd slam would come. On hard courts Nadal is not the guy to beat anyway. A hard court slam would be very tough with Federer, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro all around. Granted all 4 of those seem a mess right now. However you know the crappy Federer of Indian Wells and Miami wont show up the hard court Slams, it never does. Djokovic always seems to perform well at the hard court Slams and will have his act together again soon probably. Murray, well he is a question mark, but he is very tough for Roddick to beat on hard courts if they do meet. Del Potro will be back, just probably not back in top form by the French Open is all.

As for Wimbledon even if Nadal doesnt recover Federer is clearly the guy to beat there still.



Roddick currently owns Djokovic on hardcourts, Murray is a question mark and is totally out of sorts, and in their last encounter at a slam Roddick took the initiative and won that match.



The only guys Roddick would not want to play are Del Potro and Federer, but seriously who wants to play those guys on a HC anyways.

CallOfBooty
04-02-2010, 04:19 PM
And people had the nerve to say Roddick had 4.0 volleys... I hope they realize that they were completely wrong.

dh003i
04-02-2010, 04:57 PM
Yup,it was great to see Roddick adjust the way he did after losing the 1st set.That game in 2nd set in which he broke Nadal to love with some monster FHs was just amazing,came out of nowhere,I don't remembe the last time he hit so many big FHs in a row in one game.

Mixing it up with S&V(what Murray did at AO)on the second serve(first one is too fast,he can't get to the net in time)also worked very well.

Now if only Roddick can get into his thick head to play the way he did in 2nd and 3d set from the start of the match when he's facing another top player he might just win a second slam.

Yes, Roddick is a pretty under-rated player. He's really too good of a player to retire with only 1 slam.

Yet, when Federer beat him last year at Wimbledon, many discredited that by demeaning Roddick.

When he plays aggressively like he did against Nadal today, he is an excellent player.

Funny how the era that Federer dominated was a weak era with "weak" players like Roddick, yet, who's doing better in slam finals vs. Federer? Not Murray, not Djokovic, but Roddick.

sh@de
04-02-2010, 06:29 PM
I'm glad Andy hasn't completly forgotten how to flatten out and blast a forehand. It feels like its been years since I've seen that. Anyway, as for the question:

If we disregard career and h2h results, play the match in a vacuum (ie no extraneous weather factors), with both players performing at their peak....I have to go with Nadal. That is tough to do being a Roddick fan, but looking at their strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, and how they match up, Nadal appears to have an edge.

Of course in reality you have numerous variables to take into account when trying to assess performance. Things such as weather, court speed, injury, not having your bottles lined up correctly, motivation, and just the plain reality of either player being in the zone or having an off day.

HAHAH nice post mate :)

I think Nadal is still overall the better player on HCs so far, but if Roddick continues to play his high risk, high reward tennis against the top 10, who knows, maybe he'll sneak in another slam or more masters even if he doesn't manage a slam. Then it'll be hard to tell who's better.

Atherton2003
04-02-2010, 06:34 PM
How old is Roddick?

TheNatural
04-03-2010, 02:27 AM
Roddick has improved his grinding skills.

NoleDjoko
04-03-2010, 05:24 AM
roddick deafeated nadal in miami which is rather slow hardcourt

6rump
04-03-2010, 05:30 AM
How old is Roddick?

what's your point huh??

President
04-03-2010, 05:36 AM
I'd say Nadal has a greater chance of winning another HC slam than Roddick, regardless of the result of the match yesterday. Roddick played a great match yesterday, and I think he would have a decent chance against Nadal in a HC slam. However, Nadal is not his main obstacle to a HC slam. Roger Federer will not be intimidated by the aggressive Roddick we saw yesterday. Honestly, he probably finds "pusher" Roddick more difficult to play against. Check out Federer's results against people like Robin Soderling and Roddick himself (2003-2005 he was a ballbasher). He eats up pace. I don't agree with the assessment that Roddick needs to play like this every match.

I'll say peak Nadal is a greater threat to win a HC slam than peak Roddick, but current Roddick is probably better than current Nadal.

rommil
04-03-2010, 06:42 AM
And people had the nerve to say Roddick had 4.0 volleys... I hope they realize that they were completely wrong.

I agree. That's preposterous. I say 4.5........

sh@de
04-03-2010, 07:02 AM
I'd say Nadal has a greater chance of winning another HC slam than Roddick, regardless of the result of the match yesterday. Roddick played a great match yesterday, and I think he would have a decent chance against Nadal in a HC slam. However, Nadal is not his main obstacle to a HC slam. Roger Federer will not be intimidated by the aggressive Roddick we saw yesterday. Honestly, he probably finds "pusher" Roddick more difficult to play against. Check out Federer's results against people like Robin Soderling and Roddick himself (2003-2005 he was a ballbasher). He eats up pace. I don't agree with the assessment that Roddick needs to play like this every match.

I'll say peak Nadal is a greater threat to win a HC slam than peak Roddick, but current Roddick is probably better than current Nadal.

He used to anyway. But he's been rattled recently by pace - DP matches have got to him, he didn't handle Bird man...

pjonesy
04-03-2010, 07:28 AM
Don't make me laugh. Agassi's Wimbledon draws were complete jokes. His win at Wimbledon was easily the most favorable draw he could have possibly asked for, and he got the one great grasscourt player that he owned for most of his career.



Roddick has 3 finals, multiple Queens titles, and a SF. He nearly beat Federer in two of those encounters, arguably one of the greatest grasscourt players of all time. If Sampras was standing in Agassi's way in 92 there's no way Agassi even comes close to Wimbledon.



I actually dare you to go to the Former Pros and Players section and attempt to make the argument that Agassi is a better grasscourt player than Roddick. By no means is Agassi a "superior" grasscourt player than Roddick, at worst they are even.

Honestly, I cannot really argue against the fact that Agassi was fortunate to win Wimbledon in '92 and benefited from favorable draws when he went deep in the tournament. I also would even agree that Agassi and Roddick are probably about even in regard to their proficiency and/or success on grass. However, the overwhelming majority of players who were successful on grass in the '80s and '90s had big serves and/or a serve and volley game, which is virtually non existent today. Agassi used his return of serve and flattened out his groundstrokes to compete with the big servers on grass. He certainly did not have a beautiful, classic grass court game, but as much as his playing style was against the grain, it was amazing that he used that style of play to win Wimbledon. Courier did get to the final with a backcourt game, but did not take the ball quite as early as Agassi (yes, I realize Courier had to contend with Sampras in the final). Its hard to say that Agassi was not deserving of a Wimbledon title when he had to beat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic in the process. Obviously, the speed of the Wimbledon grass has changed in the past 10 years and that certainly has to be factored when comparing Roddick and Agassi on the surface (Does Roddick have a win over Agassi at Queen's Club?). The bottom line is that regardless of having a bit of good fortune at Wimbledon, Agassi deserves quite a bit of credit for actually winning the title without having any of the traditional grass court weapons.

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-03-2010, 07:41 AM
Come on, guys. Roddick beating Nadal yesterday means something.

A wrong-side-of-25, past-his-prime Roddick beat a supposedly back-in-form, right-side-of-25 Nadal.

That's gotta mean something...

raisethe3
04-03-2010, 07:45 AM
I'd say Roddick.

Atherton2003
04-03-2010, 07:46 AM
Aside from this tournament, does anyone really think Roddick is gonna win another grand slam tournament?

Legend of Borg
04-03-2010, 07:49 AM
Aside from this tournament, does anyone really think Roddick is gonna win another grand slam tournament?

If he does, surely it's going to be Wimbledon. He came so close last year, not to mention the two finals he was in.

namelessone
04-03-2010, 07:50 AM
Come on, guys. Roddick beating Nadal yesterday means something.

A wrong-side-of-25, past-his-prime Roddick beat a supposedly back-in-form, right-side-of-25 Nadal.

That's gotta mean something...

Some form but way off mentally. BTW,Roddick is so past his prime that he had one of his best GS performances last year. The argument can be made that Rafa is also past his prime.

Honest question: right now,if we make them play on HC(whatever speed) who wins most encounters in 10 matches? Maybe I am biased but I say Rafa takes 6 out of 10 if not more. To quote yesterday's winner he rolled the dice in the second with some massive old school forehands and won,he turned the match on its head with that game cause he was run all over the place until then. Good strategy overall but risky. And even so it was a fairly even affair if you look at the stats. To summarize it,yesterday roddick basically said f**k it when he saw that he could not hang from the baseline and started churning out massive fh out of nowhere while Rafa was shocked and even when he had BP's in the third he was as flat as a pancake.

We had a roddick who did a 180 in the second after seeing that nothing worked and a Rafa who,despite being shocked by Roddick's 180 move,still played good tennis and had chances but was frustrated with himself(for letting another match slip) and started playing craptascular tennis towards the end,no initiative whatsoever(notice how few passers and DTL he gets in the third,he just send the ball over the net and that was it basically).

Atherton2003
04-03-2010, 07:52 AM
Roddick relies on his serve - if he is serving well, he can win because players like Nadal won't be able to "break" him. If Roddick's serve isn't as good on a particular day, he doesn't have the game or strategy to get into a serve and volley type match with a guy like Nadal.

Atherton2003
04-03-2010, 07:52 AM
I think Nadal would have won any 4 or 5-set match against Roddick

NamRanger
04-03-2010, 08:14 AM
Honestly, I cannot really argue against the fact that Agassi was fortunate to win Wimbledon in '92 and benefited from favorable draws when he went deep in the tournament. I also would even agree that Agassi and Roddick are probably about even in regard to their proficiency and/or success on grass. However, the overwhelming majority of players who were successful on grass in the '80s and '90s had big serves and/or a serve and volley game, which is virtually non existent today. Agassi used his return of serve and flattened out his groundstrokes to compete with the big servers on grass. He certainly did not have a beautiful, classic grass court game, but as much as his playing style was against the grain, it was amazing that he used that style of play to win Wimbledon. Courier did get to the final with a backcourt game, but did not take the ball quite as early as Agassi (yes, I realize Courier had to contend with Sampras in the final). Its hard to say that Agassi was not deserving of a Wimbledon title when he had to beat Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic in the process. Obviously, the speed of the Wimbledon grass has changed in the past 10 years and that certainly has to be factored when comparing Roddick and Agassi on the surface (Does Roddick have a win over Agassi at Queen's Club?). The bottom line is that regardless of having a bit of good fortune at Wimbledon, Agassi deserves quite a bit of credit for actually winning the title without having any of the traditional grass court weapons.




No one ever said it wasn't impressive, but his opponents McEnroe (who was out of his prime, was a player from the wood era, no real threatening weapons to Agassi) and Becker were both very favorable match-ups for Agassi. And we all know Goran as the megachoker in Wimbledon finals.



I'm just saying if you gave Roddick 3 favorable match-ups in the QF, SF, and Finals of Wimbledon he'd easily win and not waste his opportunity.

devila
04-03-2010, 11:09 AM
Roddick had easy service games except 1 sloppy volley game in the 1st set, but you thought he was ripped apart in the first 2 sets?
Yea, it was impossible to beat Nadal from the baseline, that's why
he broke Nadal 3 times easily. If Murray or Federer had the same winning score, you'd say they had a wonderful all-court performance. Oh, they lost early because they didn't care.
Delusional much?

devila
04-03-2010, 11:13 AM
I'll say peak Nadal is a greater threat to win a HC slam than peak Roddick, but current Roddick is probably better than current Nadal.
Ever heard of Blake, Youzhny, Davydenko & Federer, Nadal's favorite doormat?

ClubHoUno
04-03-2010, 02:21 PM
When Nadal is on form, Roddick and probably noone has a chance against him on slow to medium paced hardcourts.

coloskier
04-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Please remember that Roddick beat Nadal on the 2nd slowest HC on the tour after IW. On a faster HC, Roddick gives Nadal even more trouble.

ClubHoUno
04-03-2010, 07:55 PM
Please remember that Roddick beat Nadal on the 2nd slowest HC on the tour after IW. On a faster HC, Roddick gives Nadal even more trouble.

I said, when Nadal is at his best - Nadal was at his best in the first set, and Roddick looked like he could do nothing, if he didn't pull of a service winnner.

Nadal in 2.nd and 3.rd was the Nadal of recent time - not playing up to the standard that lead him to No.1 in the world and allowed him to beat fed at Wimby.

I'm not a Nadal fan, but I have to admit, when Nadal is on form he can beat Roddick on any surface in the world - maybe not the fastest hardcourts and fastest old Wimby grass (Wimby grass in the early 90's) - but on any other surface a Nadal in form will beat a Roddick in form in 2 straight sets easily ;)

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-03-2010, 08:02 PM
What's this "at his best" crap. Neither player was at their best and hasn't been for quite a while. Roddick won. Nadal lost. It may not happen like that six or more times out of ten or whatever kind of crap formula you guys want to put on it, but when it comes down to it, no formula. No "ifs". No "if onlys". It happened. Nadal lost. Deal with it.

And stop making excuses. Please.

ClubHoUno
04-03-2010, 09:21 PM
What's this "at his best" crap. Neither player was at their best and hasn't been for quite a while. Roddick won. Nadal lost. It may not happen like that six or more times out of ten or whatever kind of crap formula you guys want to put on it, but when it comes down to it, no formula. No "ifs". No "if onlys". It happened. Nadal lost. Deal with it.

And stop making excuses. Please.

We discuss tennis in here - results, if, whens, nots, hows and all that.

If we all just accepted the results and didn't discuss or analyzed the results, then this section in the forum would be like a desert in Sahara.........empty :)

samprasvsfederer123
04-03-2010, 09:25 PM
When Nadal is on form, Roddick and probably noone has a chance against him on slow to medium paced hardcourts.

you are crazy, so 2007 australian open federer is nothing, go tell these lame stories to some old folk or something

samprasvsfederer123
04-03-2010, 09:26 PM
I'd say Nadal has a greater chance of winning another HC slam than Roddick, regardless of the result of the match yesterday. Roddick played a great match yesterday, and I think he would have a decent chance against Nadal in a HC slam. However, Nadal is not his main obstacle to a HC slam. Roger Federer will not be intimidated by the aggressive Roddick we saw yesterday. Honestly, he probably finds "pusher" Roddick more difficult to play against. Check out Federer's results against people like Robin Soderling and Roddick himself (2003-2005 he was a ballbasher). He eats up pace. I don't agree with the assessment that Roddick needs to play like this every match.

I'll say peak Nadal is a greater threat to win a HC slam than peak Roddick, but current Roddick is probably better than current Nadal.

if roddick layed like he did against federer at wimby and unleashed some shots like these he would have won the 2nd set tiebreaker.

jackson vile
09-22-2011, 01:52 PM
Anyone changed their mind yet?

Towser83
09-22-2011, 01:54 PM
Roddick is a better hardcourter, Nadal is a much much better player, which means sometimes the surface simply doesn't matter.

Mustard
09-22-2011, 05:40 PM
LOL at the poll results :lol:

RoddickAce
09-22-2011, 05:51 PM
Even as a Roddick fan, I'd say Nadal is overall a better hardcourt player.

But peak 2002-2004 Roddick is a slightly better hardcourt player than peak 2008/2010 Nadal.

bullfan
09-22-2011, 06:12 PM
Nadal has more HC GS than Roddick. Nadal's got a better US Open record than Roddick. Roddick has a better AO than Nadal except for the fact that Nadal has won AO, and Roddick has not.

bullfan
09-22-2011, 06:13 PM
Even as a Roddick fan, I'd say Nadal is overall a better hardcourt player.

But peak 2002-2004 Roddick is a slightly better hardcourt player than peak 2008/2010 Nadal.

It's very ironic that you picked a Nadal period where he won 2 HC GS, and Roddick only 1 GS.

bullfan
09-22-2011, 06:16 PM
Anyone changed their mind yet?

LOL, Novak (4) > Fedal (27) That cracks me up!

Sure, time will tell what Novak does overall, but at this point, it's laughable.

Set Sampras
09-22-2011, 08:05 PM
Aye.. Quite a poll considering Nadal just totally embarrassed Roddick right off the court at the USO.

Nadal has taken Fed out at the AO, he beat Djokovic at the USO last year.. I think just that trumps Roddick's little hardcourt resume.

MichaelNadal
09-22-2011, 09:51 PM
LOL at the poll results :lol:

Welcome to bash Rafa warehouse :) It overrules rationale.

veritech
09-23-2011, 09:39 AM
nadal is a better player period, on all surfaces and all aspects of the game, with the exception being the service.