Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by aphex, Mar 28, 2010.
what do you think?
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.
umm, i dont know..if there is a gap, its kinda a small..
Nadal has actually won Montreal twice.
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.
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.
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.
And Nadal has won Indian Wells twice.
omg..thats what i said..:neutral:..roddick is better on faster ones and nadal on slower ones..
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.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Enough with the conjecture!
Once, in 2005. His 2008 Canada win was in Toronto.
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.
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.
Let's put it this way: if Federer has not been around, Roddick's hardcourt resume would improve much more drastically than Nadal's:
Without Federer, Nadal only gains one more Masters Series title and possibly two Masters Cup titles. That's it.
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).
Since 2009 or so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Del Potro owns him
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.
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
the better hardourt player.
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?
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).
Agassi's AO 2003 draw was a joke as well.
So was Andys, lets be honest. ..I mean to get Schuettler on SF..i still dont believe that he lost to him. :cry:
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.
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.
is this a real question..
who has a US Open title? who doesnt?
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
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.
Who are you?
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 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.
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
Fast hardcourts (like dubai) roddick would win, slower hardcourts and nadal wins. The term hardcourt is very elastic in todays game.
In dubai or USO 04 Roddick would blast 50 winners from his FH side to Nadal..
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.
Separate names with a comma.