PDA

View Full Version : Could Fish have become better than Roddick?


snoopy
12-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Besides from Andy's monster serve, Mardy seems to have more natural tennis ability.

Once mardy lost weight, his game blossomed. If Mardy was more serious about tennis early in his career, could he have surpassed Roddick's best?

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 06:11 PM
No. All this year shows is that Mardy's best isnt even good enough to win a Masters, even at events like Canada and Cincinnati where he had literally no competition (a badly out of form and fatigued Djokovic in the Canada final his only obstacle, and Murray in Cincinnati being his only obstacles). He is barely able to make the occasional slam quarterfinal either. In a year where the bottom half of the top 10 is arguably the worst ever he ekes into the top 10 with his best ever year of tennis. Prime Roddick is light years better than Blake as his U.S Open title, numerous slam finals, #1 ranking (albeit brief), and many Masters titles all show.

I think alot of people forget what Roddick in his prime did accomplish. I laugh at the mere thought of Fish ending a year ranked #1 (or even #2 and #3 as Roddick did the following tow years). You are comparing a guy whose best cant even win a Masters to someone who ended a year ranked #1 over Federer one year. Seriously.

adamX012
12-08-2011, 06:44 PM
Besides from Andy's monster serve, Mardy seems to have more natural tennis ability.

Once mardy lost weight, his game blossomed. If Mardy was more serious about tennis early in his career, could he have surpassed Roddick's best?

Mardy.. hard to say at this point.... Maybe... five years from not.. Just saying...

kishnabe
12-08-2011, 07:41 PM
Roddick has accomplished a lot.....and I don't think Fish would become better had he done the right things much earlier. Fish defintly would be a good number 2 amercian with some great results maybe a slam semi and 1-2 MS titles had the change came in 2002.

Cup8489
12-08-2011, 08:35 PM
Idk why Roddick is so underrated. The guy has won 30 titles.. How many players have won 30 titles including a major in their careers? The guy isn't given enough credit.

Devilito
12-08-2011, 08:42 PM
Idk why Roddick is so underrated. The guy has won 30 titles.. How many players have won 30 titles including a major in their careers? The guy isn't given enough credit.

yeah, plus 2009 Wimbledon which was basically a 50/50 and one of the best matches ever.

purge
12-08-2011, 09:14 PM
yeah, plus 2009 Wimbledon which was basically a 50/50 and one of HIS best matches ever.

thought that needed a fix

still the point remains that roddick usaually gets bashed on all ends by people who want to hold up the whole "weak era" thing when in truth he was very very far from easy to beat when he was at his best. his only problem is that being very very far from easy to beat is not enough to not get destroyed by a prime federer

just the fact that he actually MET prime federer more times than anyone else on tour should tell you how well he was doing at that time

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 09:16 PM
Idk why Roddick is so underrated. The guy has won 30 titles.. How many players have won 30 titles including a major in their careers? The guy isn't given enough credit.

I think it is largely due to the perception of the edge he gains by his serve. The serve is the most important shot in tennis though, which cannot be overlooked. Roddick's serve alone is worth more than Fish's whole game (which is nice but doesnt have a single thing spectacular to it). That plus outside the serve his strengths arent as visually impressive- alot of consistency off the ground, grinding ability, determination. Also his impressive forehand blasts which aided him to much of his greatest success are a thing of the distant past now, so are often forgotten especialy by younger fans.

Roddick85
12-09-2011, 03:30 AM
Roddick is very underrated. People tend to judge his whole career based on his disappointing results in the last 2 years which isn't right. He won 1 slam and made slam finals 4 other times which he lost all to...Federer. He's by far the best player America has produced in the last 10 years, Fish doesn't compare.

Mainad
12-09-2011, 07:02 AM
No. All this year shows is that Mardy's best isnt even good enough to win a Masters, even at events like Canada and Cincinnati where he had literally no competition (a badly out of form and fatigued Djokovic in the Canada final his only obstacle, and Murray in Cincinnati being his only obstacles).

Not sure why you think Murray wasn't competition for Fish at Cincinnati.
However I agree with you that both Montreal and Cincinnati this year were probably Fish's best chances at finally winning a Masters. But he choked away a chance to beat Djokovic in Montreal and seemed to have run out of gas when he played a slightly sub-par Murray in Cincy.

But I doubt he could have become better than Roddick. Unlike the latter, he never looked likely to win a Slam or even make a Slam final. It's true he lacks Roddick's monster serve (most players do) but that said his own serve is not bad and I think his all round game is good enough at its best to have garnered him at least one or two Masters titles and at least a Slam semi or two if not a final. IMO it's his lack of consistency and/or fitness which lets him down (as it does with many otherwise good players). Even with the good results he's posted this year, his consistency and fitness started to become problems again by the time of Cincinnati and have not picked up much since.

Of course age is now against him (he turns 30 this month). I certainly wouldn't put it past him to squeeze out a Masters title before he's done, probably on the North American circuit, most likely IW a la Ljubicic or Miami, ie. the tourneys where he has traditionally posted his best results.

Crazy man
12-09-2011, 07:57 AM
Besides from Andy's monster serve, Mardy seems to have more natural tennis ability.

Once mardy lost weight, his game blossomed. If Mardy was more serious about tennis early in his career, could he have surpassed Roddick's best?

Laughable. Peak for peak Roddick had the much better forehand. People forget how good his forehand really was; It rivaled Federer and in it's day it was the biggest forehand out there. Roddick moved better, had bigger, more impsing weapons and was fearless. Roddick actually returned a lot better than Fish, although his return game since 2004 has been crap.


Out of prime Roddick was still able to take guys like Murray and Djokovic out in slams, gave Nadal some tough matches and winning a few, making a few slam finals in 06 and 09 (keep in mind these three guys were in their primes). Fish in his prime hasn't done any of this. He was able to take MS events in 2006 and 2010 although playing passively bar one or two matches.






Roddick is clearly overrated on this forum.:roll:

wy2sl0
12-09-2011, 08:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9qTIcn4PeE

/thread

Mardy has ONE advantage - backhand.

Netzroller
12-09-2011, 08:49 AM
Laughable. Peak for peak Roddick had the much better forehand. People forget how good his forehand really was; It rivaled Federer and in it's day it was the biggest forehand out there. Roddick moved better, had bigger, more impsing weapons and was fearless. Roddick actually returned a lot better than Fish, although his return game since 2004 has been crap.
I agree, peak Roddick had some weapons that I don't believe Fish would have ever had. I wouldn't go as far as saying it rivaled Federer's forehand but his power was amazing.

I remember one scene from the Wimb 04 final I think where Federer blasted a winner and the commentator said: "Wow, that was a Roddick-like forehand" :lol::lol:
Nowadays it's hard to belive that this ever happened...

onyxrose81
12-09-2011, 08:50 AM
thought that needed a fix

still the point remains that roddick usaually gets bashed on all ends by people who want to hold up the whole "weak era" thing when in truth he was very very far from easy to beat when he was at his best. his only problem is that being very very far from easy to beat is not enough to not get destroyed by a prime federer

just the fact that he actually MET prime federer more times than anyone else on tour should tell you how well he was doing at that time

A lot of people want to deride Andy for his poor H2H against Fed (Fed is just the boogeyman for Andy; he was just never going to be much competition because Fed just did everything so much better, plus neutralized Andy's serve) but he had to have done something right to get that far to meet Fed. He was usually taken out in quarters and semis by Fed.

I'm an Andy fan and pretty much realize that his game is complete trash now. However, that doesn't erase his past accomplishments, however much some wants it to. We'll never really know if Fish would have been able to win as much as Andy but to be honest, I doubt it. He doesn't seem to be the strongest competitor mentally, and that's half the battle. His fitness and consistency is still an issue. We just will never know.

passive_aggressive
12-09-2011, 09:09 AM
Laughable. Peak for peak Roddick had the much better forehand. People forget how good his forehand really was; It rivaled Federer and in it's day it was the biggest forehand out there. Roddick moved better, had bigger, more impsing weapons and was fearless. Roddick actually returned a lot better than Fish, although his return game since 2004 has been crap.


Out of prime Roddick was still able to take guys like Murray and Djokovic out in slams, gave Nadal some tough matches and winning a few, making a few slam finals in 06 and 09 (keep in mind these three guys were in their primes). Fish in his prime hasn't done any of this. He was able to take MS events in 2006 and 2010 although playing passively bar one or two matches.






Roddick is clearly overrated on this forum.:roll:

What!?

You're seriously using the ability to take MURRAY out of a slam as an argument for being a good player?

On a side note - WHY has Roddick's forehand declined so much?

It's seriously like a powder puff pseudo-spinny (not real spinny like Rafa's) laughable shot. Did he get a shoulder transplant or something (actually wouldn't explain why he can still serve bombs). Dude needs to hit the bench press or something, that forehand is embarrassing nowadays.

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 11:07 AM
Not sure why you think Murray wasn't competition for Fish at Cincinnati.
However I agree with you that both Montreal and Cincinnati this year were probably Fish's best chances at finally winning a Masters. But he choked away a chance to beat Djokovic in Montreal and seemed to have run out of gas when he played a slightly sub-par Murray in Cincy.

But I doubt he could have become better than Roddick. Unlike the latter, he never looked likely to win a Slam or even make a Slam final. It's true he lacks Roddick's monster serve (most players do) but that said his own serve is not bad and I think his all round game is good enough at its best to have garnered him at least one or two Masters titles and at least a Slam semi or two if not a final. IMO it's his lack of consistency and/or fitness which lets him down (as it does with many otherwise good players). Even with the good results he's posted this year, his consistency and fitness started to become problems again by the time of Cincinnati and have not picked up much since.

Of course age is now against him (he turns 30 this month). I certainly wouldn't put it past him to squeeze out a Masters title before he's done, probably on the North American circuit, most likely IW a la Ljubicic or Miami, ie. the tourneys where he has traditionally posted his best results.

Of course Murray was competition but out of those 2 Masters that is all he had as competition really since Djokovic was in awful form in the Canada final. Murray wasnt even playing great in Cincinnati and Fish has done well against him in the past. Yet he still couldnt win even one, suggesting even a Masters title while in his best form ever, and a wide open situation at his hands, is still beyond him.

I guess he could win one but I would be surprised. I hope he does though, as he has lost 4 finals so it would be well deserved if he could. I agree with your assessment on what he could have been capable of. Yes he could have done a bit more, and spent alot more time in the top 10 or top 15, but he was never going to come close to Roddick's career- a year end #1, three years in the year end top 3, 9 straight years in the year end top 10, 5 slam finals, 5 Masters titles. It is ridiculous to even suggest Fish had the potential to have a career like that.

To those who say Fish has the better overall game (which wouldnt neccessarily mean he could have been better as many guys have a more rounded game than Roddick) that isnt even really true. Roddick not only has a much better 1st serve, but much better 2nd serve, at his best his forehand is light years better than Fish. Heck even today one could say his forehand isnt worse than Fish, Fish never had a great forehand. Roddick at his best moves and defense better than Fish does, even with all the weight Fish has lost. Fish has a stronger backhand and better volleys, and maybe returns better (although as Crazy Man said the Roddick of old returned better probably), and what else. That is pretty much it. He definitely isnt a smarter player, better competitor, or better at the intangibles of the game either.

celoft
12-09-2011, 12:03 PM
I don't think so.

Crazy man
12-09-2011, 05:58 PM
What!?

You're seriously using the ability to take MURRAY out of a slam as an argument for being a good player?
On a side note - WHY has Roddick's forehand declined so much?

It's seriously like a powder puff pseudo-spinny (not real spinny like Rafa's) laughable shot. Did he get a shoulder transplant or something (actually wouldn't explain why he can still serve bombs). Dude needs to hit the bench press or something, that forehand is embarrassing nowadays.

Bolded; I could actually use his 1 slam/3 runners up, his 2 DC, his 5 MS titles and his other bucketloads of titles to prove he's a pretty good tennis player. I emphasised his ability to beat Murray, Djokovic and Nadal whilst still out of prime an advantage over Fish - whi can't beat either even though he's currently playing at his highest level.


By the way, any idiot who believes muscle mass/shoulder strength equivalates to hitting the ball hard has never played tennis. I'm actually calling you out here, because any person who has watched Roddick would know that he changed his forehand from a biomechanical standpoint. Not just pumping iron one minute from being plain lazy the next; Far from it, because Roddick was physically stronger from 2005 onwards


Also, Roddick's forehand has declined because he decided to step forward and hit a faster swingpath. There is a problem already - this meant he had to brush up on the ball instead of unloading far behind the baseline (although sometimes he could step in and kill it from there).






'Dude needs to hit the bench press'




Go learn about tennis. Then come back to me.

SirGounder
12-09-2011, 09:05 PM
I remember somebody mentioned a while ago that Nick Bollettieri said that Fish has more natural talent, but Roddick just works so much harder.

So who would be better:
Roddick or Fish with Roddick's work ethic?

Fish seems to be pretty solid off both wings. He has a decent serve and volleys really well. It's just hard to say if his solid all around game is better than Roddick's serve and forehand.

Crazy man
12-10-2011, 06:37 AM
I remember somebody mentioned a while ago that Nick Bollettieri said that Fish has more natural talent, but Roddick just works so much harder.

So who would be better:
Roddick or Fish with Roddick's work ethic?

Fish seems to be pretty solid off both wings. He has a decent serve and volleys really well. It's just hard to say if his solid all around game is better than Roddick's serve and forehand.

Nick Bollettieri also rejected Safin for his academy. Reason - not enough potential. I think that's enough proof of what his opinion means(Jack *****!!).

Semi-Pro
12-10-2011, 07:11 AM
Could Fish have become better than Roddick?

Not in a million years. And I don't even like Roddick

Crisstti
12-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Idk why Roddick is so underrated. The guy has won 30 titles.. How many players have won 30 titles including a major in their careers? The guy isn't given enough credit.

Not on this forum anyway.

I at least have always liked him quite a lot. No way Fish could have been as good as him, I agree this year seems to prove that.

The weak competition thing... well, he's (and especially was a few years ago) a great player, but still not on the level of Rafa or Novak.

NadalAgassi
12-10-2011, 07:45 PM
I will give Fish credit for one thing. He is a better player than Roddick right now, and as bad as Roddick is playing that is in itself an achievement for him, given that he is older than Roddick and most of his career was light years behind. Nobody would have ever imagined a point would have come he would have ever been better than Roddick.

Crazy man
12-11-2011, 05:05 AM
I will give Fish credit for one thing. He is a better player than Roddick right now, and as bad as Roddick is playing that is in itself an achievement for him, given that he is older than Roddick and most of his career was light years behind. Nobody would have ever imagined a point would have come he would have ever been better than Roddick.

Everybody who is anybody is better than Roddick right now. Regardless of age. It's hardly an achievement when Roddick for whatever reason is hitting his serves 10-20 mph slower, moonballing his forehand ridiculously and slicing his BH, hitting a grand total of 0 groundstroke winners a match. The fact that Roddick is still ranked top 20 is an achievement since he's awful to watch now. Comming from a fan.