Reading so many attacking and defending threads about Andy Roddick has made me sit back to think and try to find an explanation to the origin of such a debate of encountered feelings. Tennis at the pro level is all about competition. It's not hot news to any of us that tennis is becoming more and more competitive these days, and that finesse and stroke gracefullness have gone to a second plane and receased to the benefit of physical factors (like power, endurance, quickness, etc.) and tech factors like court surface construction and/or enhancements, racquet and shoe technologies, etc.. Maybe we see Andy as a product of the "new tennis era" and compare his manners, his acing and forehand shotmaking ability to the more skillfull and inspired play of guys like Federer who can put a brake on that blasting kind of serves and win the most incredible points with amazing shots, shots that are also aesthetically nice to watch. I watch both of them play and I feel as if I was listening rock'n roll versus a Beethoven's symphony, I don't know if you folks catch me, watching tennis the way guys like Fed plays it -serve, fore, back, return, volley, overhead; flat, spin, slice, kick; straight, crosscourt, parallel: all the shots, all the effects, all the directions- leaves me nothing left to do but to stand in front of my TV and clap my hands. BUT pro tour players do not just play, they COMPETE. I give credit to Andy competing and winning and being world #1 with his rock'n roll but I PREFER The Simphony, as many of you folks do I guess -even interpreted by other less talented but still inspiring players like Grosjean, Moya, Henman and others. I do not hate Andy, what I don't like is his rock'n roll. Would be nice to read your comments folks.