Roddick is a horrible tennis player

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Ariel, Jun 30, 2004.

  1. Ariel

    Ariel Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Roddick has two huge weapons:
    a)His serve that blows out the court most of the players out there.

    b) The confidence that he has on big points, he seems to raise his concentration level and get the edge when he needs it.

    That being said, compare his win today against Schalken and the Federer-Hewitt match. Roddick's game once he gets into the point is of a top 50, not near ANY of the top 10 players; he relies in his huge weapons and lacks strategy/variety/imagination.
    And on the other hand we have the amazing shotmaking ability of Federer and incredible agility of Hewitt; those guys amaze the spectators and make it a game of skills; with Roddick is just a macho thing of who his the stronger ball; that's not tennis any longer is something else that I don't like.
     
    #1
  2. david aames

    david aames Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,181
    I'm certainly no Roddick fan but his 'horrible tennis' game got him to the semis at Wimbledon 2 years in a row... Quite an achievement at his age.
     
    #2
  3. jun

    jun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    548
    Well there is no doubt Andy Roddick's serve is huge weapon. It wins him many many free points. If every point was started from baseline, I don't think Andy Roddick would be in top 5. Perhaps not even top 10.

    But as we have seen, big serve alone is not going to carry you to the top. You have to be able to back it up with volleys or groundies or whatever.

    With this being said, it's not correct to say that Roddick lacks strategy and etc. Sure he doesn't have finese like Roger does. But I think he has capability to enforce his strength on the opponent's weakness, and to employ different strategy.
     
    #3
  4. dander

    dander Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    321
    couldn't agree more. i really used to dislike roddie quite a bit with all of the whining and faking cramps and that awful boy band visor, let alone his one dimensional game, although this year i'm coming to begrudgingly admire his fight and competitveness.

    but to support your point, even agassi came out and said at indian wells (i think) that most guys, once they get into the rally with him, like their chances. that's pretty much a smackdown. he seems to be playing better with the grasscourt season, but meeting fed will be the ultimate test
     
    #4
  5. Nadal2

    Nadal2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    149
    Indeed, Roddick's lack of what you said: imagination, variety, strategy is going to be a huge problem if he ever plans to still be near the top at age 26 (in five years). Todd Martin referred to him after RG as being like Jim Courier, that once other people could hit as hard as him, he would be toast. But he added, "that may take a few years". Anyways, Roddick isn't going to ever win any more majors other than the USO. He may sneak a Wimbledon, if Federer gets injured. He's not going to win on clay and he's not going to win on the slower hard courts of the Australian Open. If he ever wants to prevent this, he has to 1. stop being a horrible net player and 2. find weaknesses in your opponent, don't be satisfied to just hit it wherever as long as it's hard.
    On the other hand, I would say that he has quite a bit of racquet acceleration on the forehand (although his forehand ranks behind those of Federer, Moya, and Ferrero) and that the second thing you mentioned is very useful (it makes him harder to break).
    These feelings of hate for Roddick based on how much ESPN shows him and how ugly his game took me over, too, but I found out he is kind of a funny guy and didn't hate him as much.
     
    #5
  6. VamosRafa

    VamosRafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,202
    Totally :lol: here.

    I go back to my original point from months ago -- if Roddick is that bad, and finished the year No. 1 and is now No. 2, what does it say for the rest of the ATP?

    Not much.

    But objective folks realize that he does have a pretty serious game. Yes, it's surrounded by his serve, but he does have to back it up. Otherwise, Wayne Arthurs would have had a better career than what he's had. And perhaps a few other players.

    There's some great quotes from Schalken, Hewitt and others about Andy's game and the difficulty in dealing with it, but I won't waste my breath posting it here. You can view it all at http://www.wimbledon.org. Just go to players, and click on interviews.

    Andy will be tested by Ancic, and if he gets by that (as he did at Queen's), he will indeed be tested by Federer.

    But I think, when all is said and done, we'll see why these two guys are the best on faster surfaces.

    Susan
     
    #6
  7. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Give Andy some credit, he's worked hard at developing his 2 handed backhand and he's trying to volley more even though he still sucks at it. Andy's backhand used to be a good place to aim at, but now he makes decent returns with it. Andy's total game will get better in time, but for now, let him rely on his power. If you hate Andy for his big serve, maybe it's because you don't have one. That's human nature you know.
     
    #7
  8. VamosRafa

    VamosRafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,202
    Okay, changed my mind. Figured I'd post what Schalken said today about Andy's all-around game, and his second serve vs. Pete's. It is interesting stuff, as this is a guy who has played him, unlike the rest of us. :lol:

     
    #8
  9. corncob3466

    corncob3466 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    well, if horrible gets you a US Open title, many other career titles, two semi appearances at wimbledon, i want to be a horrible tennis player.
     
    #9
  10. sarpmas

    sarpmas Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    I don't really understand why many of you think that Andy's game lacks imagination, lacks variety whatsoever. Andy is blessed with having 2 of the biggest weapons in tennis, a huge serve and a big fh. If I'm a pro, earning $$ through tennis, I will make full use of my weapons. There is really no special strategy in tennis because ultimately, you simply want to setup a point to finish off the next point asap against your opponent. I'm not implying tennis is an easy game because you still have to execute your shots properly to achieve that. But strategy wise, tennis is really not a complicated game. With the weapons Andy possessed, his game plan is obvious. Either win through his serve or through his big fh. And which pro in ATP doesn't do what Andy is doing if he has Andy's weapons? Moya has a big serve and a big fh too, is Moya's game any different from Andy's? Perhaps Andy's game do not have the smoothness of a Moya or a Federer, but this does not mean his game is any less imagination or less variety or less strategic than others.

    Also, about his serve. Am I fair to say every player only serves 50% of the time? When you win all your serves doesn't mean you can win the match, you still have to break your opponent's serve to win! I just thought we shouldn't discount Andy's achievements thus far simply because he has a big serve that earned him cheap points. He is where he is right now because he can hold his ground and break his opponent's. Let's not forget, this year's Wimbledon semis has a balance number of players that serve big and serve ok.
     
    #10
  11. perfmode

    perfmode Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,767
    Andy's game isn't bad, it's just ugly.


    Kinda like his coaches book...
     
    #11
  12. SonicSpeed

    SonicSpeed Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    Sjeng is a nice guy. :)
     
    #12
  13. VamosRafa

    VamosRafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,202
    Yeah, Sjeng is, but Andy was equally nice about Sjeng in his interview, at:

    http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/interviews/2004-06-30/200406301088618745343.html

    Here's my fave quote from Andy's interview.


    :lol:

    One more thing. I noted the comparison above between Roddick and Moya, who both have big serves and big forehands.

    Andy is 3-0 against Moya. Moya has been a pro 5 years longer than Andy, yet he has 17 titles to Andy's 14. Both have one slam title.

    Andy's has a mental edge, no doubt. But Moya has experience. And still, they are very close in numbers, with the difference being that Moya's titles are mostly on clay, and Andy's aren't.

    Should be an interesting summer . . . .
     
    #13
  14. corncob3466

    corncob3466 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    lol, damn. thats cold.
     
    #14
  15. i.Radical

    i.Radical Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    403
    I used to dislike Roddick until t I learned how funny he actually is. But saying he doesn't have a weakness is going a little too far.
     
    #15
  16. jun

    jun Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    548
    I think Roddick is always a threat at US Open. I think he can win Aussie Open. The high bouncing hard court should help him. One thing is that he will be playing in Masters Cup for a few years, and possibily Davis Cup finals. So I don't think how that's going to work out.

    Wimbledon, he's been playing extremely well on the grass. If he's a little on, and with a little luck, he could win it.
     
    #16
  17. alienhamster

    alienhamster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,658
    Have you watched any of Roddick's matches lately? He's actually constructing points, changing his game when something isn't working (e.g. throwing in off-pace stuff, slices), and surprising his opponents (setting up an obvious IO forehand, only to go down the line at the last minute). At this Wimbledon he's taken several good baseliners often to 0-30, 0-40 in their service games. I really don't think he's bad in baseline rallies.

    Federer is capable of much, much more shot-wise--but that's more than *any* other player, not just Roddick. Ferrero, Coria, Agassi, and Hewitt can all look crappy against Fed. Comparing him to Roddick doesn't prove anything.
     
    #17
  18. fjgarciap

    fjgarciap Rookie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    329
    Each player has his strength: Guga has his backhand, Moya his fore, Hewitt his mobility, Coria his defense, Agassi his consistence, Henman his volleys, A-rod his serve. When any of them imposes his major weapon, then come the titles and thus the points that lead to the #1 in the ranks. Some can maintain their peak level more time than others, and so they become dominant.

    I agree A-rod is an aesthetically "horrible" tennis player WHEN you compare him to a genius like Fed, but he could manage to impose himself and end the 2003 as number one. You know, his coach is Brad Gilbert, the author of "Winning Ugly", remember?

    Nowadays there's Fed at the top, a racquet genius, and then the top-ranked players, and yes A-rod belongs to this group.
     
    #18
  19. Matt H.

    Matt H. Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,279
    For the sake of this thread, i hope Roddick beats Ancic, and then wipes the floor with Federer in the final.....just so i can sit back and watch the chaos and humor myself with all the excuses everyone will be making on this board. 8)
     
    #19
  20. bcaz

    bcaz Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    986
    Geez, I can't believe these guys ... they're probably the same ones who dissed Sampras incessantly until he retired, when the disgust suddenly turned into worship. After post after post, month after month of this drivel, the only valid point seems to be, Roddick (#2) isn't as good as Federer (#1). Wow! What insight!

    I'm not an Andy fan; I prefer Roger's game, but Roddick continues to improve and he has been showing the heart of a champion virtually every time he takes the court. Roger is better, but he may have to prove it again on Sunday.
     
    #20
  21. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    Roddick's volleys are definitely a weakness. I think Sjeng is being gratuitous with the compliments.
     
    #21
  22. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Yeah, sure, we all know that "horrible" players make the semis of Wimbledon twice, win the US Open in a walk, and add a couple Masters tournaments to boot. Roddick has some holes in his game-it isn't flawless, but he's had some pretty good results in his short career, so let's stop with the moroinic thread titles, shall we? You want to talk tennis, do it with at least a shred of intelligence.
     
    #22
  23. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    I wouldn't call me a Roddick fan but I'd rather watch him then say Fish/Spadea. Roddick's game is based on power (huge serve and big forehand, backhand getting better) and not finesse.. nothing wrong with that as he has the power to hit through a lot of his opponents. It's based on playing the game on his terms when he walks on court.

    However there are plenty of younger players who are coming up who will hit the ball as hard if not harder and who will thrive on the pace that Roddick brings (Nadal springs to mind). Each generation builds on the last (one reason why the Williams sisters may well have seen their best days). It's being able to cope with these younger players in time that will dictate Roddick's place in the GOAT lists. Time will tell.. personally I'm not sure he will dominate for 10 years in the mould as Sampras did (or a Federer may do).
     
    #23
  24. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    I am not a Roddick fan. However, he is not a horrible tennis player.

    You could say the same thing about Sampras=Huge serve, and great running forehand. Still, he won 14 slams. I am sure you would not say he is a horrible tennis player.
     
    #24
  25. baseliner

    baseliner Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Wonder how many GS titles Pete would have won with just an average serve? Andy's serve and huge forehand are an integral part of his game, just like ground strokes are a part of a baseliner's game and wheels were part of Chang's. you have to view the total package. To denigrate Roddick's game by saying the only slams he will win in the future are the USO and maybe a Wimbledon if Federer slips up doesn't really damn his game. How many grand slam tourneys does he have to win before he gets his due as a great player?
     
    #25
  26. Nadal2

    Nadal2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    149
    For the question you just raised, baseliner, I would have to say 1 non-US Open. For some people there will always be controversy about the 2003 USO scheduling.
    All I am saying is that he won't last as long as say, Sampras, on tour because hitting the ball hard is his game and there will sometime be guys who can hit the ball as hard.
    And this whole topic seems to be contradicting itself, because the two things that Ariel mentioned can make someone a great player.
     
    #26
  27. Ariel

    Ariel Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Of course, Nadal2, that having a huge serve and strong mindset can make a tennis player a great one. I'm just saying that I don't like that style, I consider tennis a game of skills and not brute force. Roddick belongs to the WWF more than to the tennis elite.

    I give the guy credit for his achievements, but in my personal opinion his tennis is not ranked high, actually is out there with some other players I dislike watching.

    Sampras has a huge serve and was mentally strong too, he looked forward to tie-breaks. But his serve was a thing of beauty, his rithm and movements were text-book classics; on top of that, his volleys were the best in the business, perhaps Rafter can have something to say to this but the point is that his game was based on skills not brute force.

    On a side note, I also agree that the 03 US Open scheduling was done to favor us players; the TV was an excuse to make Agassi and A-Rod play while previous matches where on delay; was shameful to us tennis the way everything was arranged to have an all-american final. Those are the things we have to respect from the British and french, they do not change the rules to favor his players (grass court rankings are based on a math formula and aimed to favor those players that do better on the green stuff).
     
    #27
  28. perfmode

    perfmode Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,767
    The difference is, Sampras played beautiful tennis and he had finesse like Federer.
     
    #28
  29. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    And to be fair Roddick is improving in the finesse department. He actually managed to hit some nice backhand passing shots on the run in recent matches and he's learning to work a point. He still hits a little too short though having said that with that power behind the shot he's still controlling points against most except the few who can deal with it. As folk have posted here.. for all the apparent weaknesses (and poor clay court season) he's still up there with the best when it comes to the faster courts and he's still the world number 2.
     
    #29
  30. bigserving

    bigserving Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    604
    Tennis is about results not about styles. The different styles are one of the beautiful thing about tennis. Whatever style, weapons, or strategy you want to use, bring it.

    Whether its Chang running and retrieving at 5-9 or Karlovic serving from the roof at 6-9. Roddick has his strengths and as a competitor, he should try bring his strengths into play as often as possible. He could retire today, and would have had a better career than 95% of professionals in history. He won't be hanging his head if he does not reach some other milestones by some other age. A millionaire, US Open Champ, number 1 in the world.

    I am not a big fan of his style (especially those hats), but I do respect his results.

    Look at the Wild-Cards into Wimbledon this year. They are mostly Brits who I have never heard of, and who aren't ranked high enough to play much on the regular tour. The British Federation should favor their players as do the French, Aussies, and Americans.
     
    #30
  31. SelesGirl

    SelesGirl Guest

    Roddick's game may not be the most beautiful or have the most artistry, but at the end of the day what matters most is if you are still in the tournament. You may not like the way it "looks" but that doesn't mean it isn't great. Personally, I'd rather play ugly out there and be in the top 10 with several titles, than to havbe a lower ranking and fewer titles with a "pretty" game. Ariel: If Andy is a "horrible" player, what does that say about everyone ranked below him? Are you saying that 99% of the ATP sucks @ss? I'd like to see you go out there and beat Roddick or another ATP pro. People who don't like Roddick are free to feel how they want and to express their opinions, but calling a slam winner, especially one as young as Andy, is going a tad far.
     
    #31
  32. @wright

    @wright Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,567
    So Sjeng said Roddick has no weaknesses. Sjeng is a nice guy and likes Roddick, not to mention Sjeng is not the most intimidating player himself. Ask Federer if Roddick has weaknesses. He may answer the same as Sjeng, but Fed knows where the holes are.
     
    #32
  33. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    Sjeng was being nice.. besides everyone has weaknesses at any level of the game.. the question is whether the person on the other side of the court has the game to take advantage of those weaknesses. For all the Roddick bashing going on.. the fact remains that very few in the game at the moment on fast/hard courts can take advantage of Roddick's weaknesses.
     
    #33
  34. Free_Martha

    Free_Martha Guest

    Thanks for posting that interview, Susan. :)

    And yes, Ariel, as we all know here, Andy Roddick is the most one-dimensional non-talented tennis player ever. That's why he was ranked No. 1 by winning titles. He has also managed to reach the quarterfinals of practically every tournament he has entered. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Why can't all players be like Roger Federer? :roll:
     
    #34
  35. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    you cant play the way roddick plays week in week out and expect to have a long career. (look at the williamses and all their injuries) he's gonna be an early injury and/or mental burnout. it's just too hard on your body and mind to play every point amped up that way IMO..especially w. that type of stroke production. contrast federer who elevates his play only as needed and has amazingly sound stroke production..this dude can play great as long as he wants to and i dont think he is gonna have injury probs..roddick has already had a few. think we can all agree roddick is a very effective tennis player. will he approach the record of sampras or any of the other greats..i dont see how. and without a plan b or plan c game, his chances become even less. my 02. ed
     
    #35
  36. yee

    yee Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    What does it say of all other players who let this "horrible" player ended being the no.1 last year and still a strong no.2 this year? It's delutional to keep thinking Andy is nothing but all serves.

    Free_Martha, I think for once you can try defending andy without having to involve Roger. Trying to do that all the time just show how sour you are at the same time, despite your points might be valid.
     
    #36
  37. a verrry large duck

    a verrry large duck Rookie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    201
    No doubt his pure power serve is pretty much the bread and butter, more so I think than any other player in recent memory. But like schalken said, hey you know that's his talent. His groundstrokes are kind of darn good right now, and I would say his only big weakness is if you pressure his backhand.
     
    #37
  38. Feña14

    Feña14 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    5,377
    Location:
    England
    Well as you know I dislike Roddick, his game is so boring and the winner of wimbledon just shouldn't be like that.

    Also that comment about the Serena V JCap match was uncalled for from a professional sportsman.

    All he can do is throw a ball and hit it hard, game over and it's really ugly. Also I hate his attitude. I do want him to beat Ancic though as he will give Federer a better game in the final than Ancic and how often do you hear me say that?!?!?!

    -Liam
     
    #38
  39. PugArePeopleToo

    PugArePeopleToo Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2004
    Messages:
    160
    It's boring because the other player cannot return his serves. Hardly his fault. Isn't it?
     
    #39
  40. Verbal_Kint

    Verbal_Kint Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    366
    Schalken said on Dutch TV that he would try to get into a backhand rally with Roddick, and viciously attack with that ball. According to Sjeng his forehand lacks length and sits up sometimes, especially when he hits it from his forehand side (so not in his backhand corner).

    As you could have seen, Schalken was the better player from the baseline yesterday..

    Marnix
     
    #40
  41. Vlad

    Vlad Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    The biggest weapon Andy has is that his ability to rise on the important points. Look at his tiebreak stats this year or overall. Look at his breakpoint saved. It is not just the big serve, he is very tough mentally like Hewitt. He likes to scramble too. He doesn't let go on every point. I personally don't like his game. It is kind of one dimensional and a bit boring. But the fact is he was #1 and solid #2 right behind that genious.. what's his name? oh Federer.
     
    #41
  42. AndyC

    AndyC Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    760
    Err not quite.. refer clay court season! ;)
     
    #42
  43. Verbal_Kint

    Verbal_Kint Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    366
    Vlad, the biggest help in winning tiebreaks/saving breakpoints is having a great serve IMO. Big servers win more service points, thus they save more breakpoints. Roddick's breakpoint-saving-percentage is nicely in between his winning percentage on first and second serves. Nothing that special IMO. I can't find tie-break stats on atptennis.com, but I'm pretty sure big servers win more tiebreaks than your average player.

    Marnix
     
    #43
  44. dax_q

    dax_q Rookie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    114
    I don't really like Roddick, but he is not a terrible player. He has many strengths. His serve is huge and it is consistent. Not many big servers have his consistency. His forehand is the same. Huge and he doesn't miss it that much. His backhand is average, but he hides it well with court positioning and decent movement for a guy of his size. More importantly he is a good competitor and is mentally tough. He doesn't lose a lot of matches any more, people have to beat him. And he is willing to improve. He is slicing his backhand and coming to the net. Like him or not, he is a good player and he is going to be around for a while.

    Furthermore, I don't see him getting injured very often. He works hard and is strong. Personally, I think his service motion is kind of relaxed. He just tosses the ball and goes after it. It is tough to explain, but I don't think he is going to be injury prone.
     
    #44
  45. mlee2

    mlee2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    what an obvious troll...
     
    #45
  46. SonicSpeed

    SonicSpeed Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    If his game is "all about power/bashing" then your pro football players would do wonderfully on the tennis tour. But they don't/won't....why? because they don't have the skill. Obviously Andy has tennis skills. His serves actually land in the service box...and considering how big he serves, it's quite remarkable how high his service percentages are. Different players have different weapons in their arsenal. Serves just happen to be Andy's main weapon.

    And we all know that just having a big serve doesn't cut it. Otherwise the top 10 would just be littered with big servers with no game. Andy obviously has stuff to back his serve up. He is #2 in the world for that reason.
     
    #46
  47. MHK

    MHK New User

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    I don't know enough about the physiological effects that different shots can have on tennis players bodies but watching Today at Wimbledon on the BBC, Andrew Castle was analysing Roddick's serve and Federer's forehand and there were some interesting points made. Yes, Andy puts a lot of power into his serve but is not putting undue pressure on the wrist or arm as the power comes from the legs and the service action. However, Federer's forehand puts alot of strain on his arm and the way his arm wraps right round his body and over his shoulder could apparently spell trouble, injury wise, in the future. As for mental effect, I don't think the fact that Roddick plays with such intensity will mean burnout - players like Conners had incredibly long careers while playing at a high intensity level - Roddick doesn't seem the type to let the pressure get to him.

    Oh, and it wa the first time that I had heard someone describe Roddick's service action as 'artistic' due to the lovely line he makes with his raised hand when he pulls back his racket. Something I had thought previously and it was rather refreshing to hear it said by the media.
     
    #47
  48. mlee2

    mlee2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Clearly, another example of purist/pundit rhetoric on the detriment of modern stroke production or in this case: Roddick's strokes.

    Who's to say Roddick's strokes or game plan isn't efficient? Watch some of his matches and compare it to his early years. He clearly "elevates his play only as needed" just as well as Fed does. The guy is just as smart on the big points as Fed is (if not more since his Plan A is inferior to Federer's, right?);-)

    You might have a point, albeit weak, about Roddick's body breaking down. But look over Roddick's carrer, he's had less injuries than Sampras during his early years. Roddick has yet to skip a major because of an injury. Compare that to Sampras' severe ones. If you're trying to suggest traditional strokes make a player less injury prone, try again and let's be less biased next time. It's in Roddick's genetics to be healthy.

    Roddick's mind breaking down?....please....This is more of an insult to Federer than it is to Roddick as you downplay how much focus and drive it takes to give and recieve a pro-level stroke. It's not easy. Federer and others have worked their butts off to keep their "minds focused" despite whatever type of strokes they have. Roddick's mind will be fine and if he burns out, I doubt it'll be because of his strokes.
     
    #48
  49. yee

    yee Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    I just wish people will just accept the fact that Roger's game is fantastic to watch and Andy's game despite not being that all rounded is as effective as it can be. Throwing in Hewitt, Nalbandian, Fererro and hopefully Safin when he gets his head together, we're going to have some great rivalries ahead.
     
    #49
  50. mlee2

    mlee2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    249
    Nah, one rivalry between Fed and Roddick is all tennis needs. Popularity is at its peak when there's ONE rivalry ala McEnroe/Borg, Sampras/Agassi.

    Popularity means more televised mens' tennis and more interesting threads.
     
    #50

Share This Page