Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BlankenshipBabaganoosh, Feb 10, 2007.
whos better? on what surface? why?
I'd usually take roddick because for one it seems that Roddick fights through funks. He'll have his temper tantrums but he never seems to give up. Whereas when I watch Blake, he just seems to implode when his game isn't on. Both are top 10 players but I'll lean to roddick and his big serve game getting him through. I haven't seen the H2H but I'll go with roddick to win 6 out of 10.
I like Roddick on hard and grass but blake may have the edge on clay because he moves lot better
Roddick is better genreally. Blake has more potenical though. Right now though Roddick is better as he has a GS and many other tournaments.
blake is better because HE DOESNT HAVE A SLAM AND NOT EVEN 1 TMS.
Roddick got Blake to a 3rd set tie-breaker when he had absolutely no confidence and was playing the worst tennis he had played in almost 2 years.
Roddick won't get broken and will actually be able to come up with some decent returns against Blakes second serve, which is not so great.
I think the big edge is the mental edge, like BiGGieStuFF mentioned. Roddick's record in Davis Cup as well as 5 set matches speaks for itself. Blake, even though he keeps his feelings inside, obviously loses it when things don't quite go his way. Sometimes he just completely loses it and loses numerous games in a row. With Roddick's serve, he can't just go away like that.
The match he lost against Malissse recently is a good example...
We'll ignore all their matches against Federer for this discussion.
Rod - cause he seems to want it more.
what ?! (characters)
for some reason i just think that blake could beat roddick i don't know why or how.
Mentally, I'd say Blake. But talent and potential, Roddick.
Blake on Clay and Roddick on Hardcourts and Grass. I believe that Roddick just has bigger weapons overall and better strategies than Blake. IMO, Blake is pretty one dimensional. He never tried to change his game plan against Gonzo in AO hence the straight set lose. Believe it or not, Roddick has more variety and weapons than Blake. He can shift gears unlike Blake who has only one gear (though i still thought that Roddick played better when he only played power tennis *forehand used to overwhelm the opponents).
Roddick would beat Blake. Roddick has a lot more dimension to his game.
Just looked this up:
Looks like james was hot in 2006 pre-connors. Wonder how Andy'll fair up at present.
roddick has the better ranking, i agree that he has been weak in the past butbhe is finding form again. i also feel he is 1 of the best grasscourters excluding fed in the world currently
Roddick is the better player.
blake is nice player and nice guy.... but i think he's overhyped. i think USA network pushed his life story a bit too much.
I like Blake a lot, he has better strokes than roddick, has better volleys, and returns well. Roddick only has a better serve, but James serve is definitley not weak. Blake is a better player but he's mentally a mess, and is too unconfident to be worthy of getting far in slams. Roddick is not better than Blake but he has pulled together what he has and gets farther in slams because he is stronger mentally.
Blake is the second best player in the world when he's ahead and comfortable. But, any sign of trouble or game plan change by the opposition and he's screwed. If he's getting out hit (like in the Aussie v. Gonzlez), he starts to mope.
There has never been a top player who, as much as Blake, totally and completely lacked a Plan B.
i dont know what to think anymore.
I've alway rooted for Blake but he disappoints me. In a match i think Roddick would probably when sadly.
Roddick would beat blake but I think Blake is better.
Here is their head to head...
ATP, Davis Cup and Grand Slam Main Draw Results
IN, U.S.A. Hard F Blake 4-6 6-4 7-6(5)
2006 London / Queen's Club
England Grass S Blake 7-5 6-4
DC, U.S.A. Hard F Roddick 7-5 6-3
2003 Cincinnati TMS
Ohio, USA Hard R16 Roddick 7-6(2) 6-2
Switzerland Carpet R16 Roddick 7-6(6) 6-3
TX, U.S.A. Clay Q Roddick 6-2 6-4
2002 San Jose
CA, U.S.A. Hard Q Roddick 6-4 6-2
TN, U.S.A. Hard F Roddick 6-4 3-6 7-5
Blake has more complete skill set (better speed, much better return) , but Roddick plays a much, much better percentage game.
Blake, for example, has a much bigger, flatter forehand, but his inclination is to play lines and go for consistent depth regardless of his opponent's spin. Now, the argument goes that Blake -- who hits well on the rise -- should do what Agassi does and play true grinder tennis. The problem is that grinder tennis requires solid two-wing foundation with deep strokes on both sides. Blake features a 1 hand BH and so can't consistently play like this.
Roddick's FH is shallow, but still heavy, and so it's hard to produce flat winner against it. This lets Roddick set up angles and move the guy off the court. Now with his inclination to attack net, he doesn't need to hit consistent deep winners.
Blake is much better at the return game. But, like most players (including Federer), his service game will lapse if he can't break you. Roddick's serve is relatively high percentage and it's so heavy that most players not named Federer simply can't attack it.
If Blake is on fire, particularly if he plays a low bounce surface, he's pretty damn close to unstoppable for at least a few sets. So put him in a 3-set match against Roddick, and the situation favors Blake. Put them in a 5 set match or more neutral surface, then the situation favors Roddick.
Isn't roddick almost back to his best in about 2002 now?
or is he better than he was at that time? His game still does not change much, and still got eaten up by his nemeses.
Like Noel said, Blake has more potential, but Roddick is still better. I haven't seen Blake keep his concentration through a 5-setter very often. When his concentration improves, he will too. He has all the strokes.
Roddick is better, but I don't know why since Blake has much better footwork, much better return, better forehand, better backhand, and hits way more winners.
Good answer. Quite a few of the mega-servers were/are almost completely serve dependant.
I would thank there are many many more too. A slightly different spin would be to listen to some of the players talk about how they beat other top players, in the little cases where they're willing to admit it. Lendl once talked about beating Mecir, feeding him paceless balls, he knew it was ugly, but that Mecir needed the pace to feed off and win, he just knew it. Fed talking about beating Gonzalez, how he always has easily, seems that he doesn't have a plan B either.... Hell, for 6 or 12 months there Fed didn't have a plan-B against Nadal.
So many players have plan a-1 & a-2, but a true plan b? Not sure many do...
Blake is not consistent. and he seems to be a player who focuses on raw power.
Roddick, the better 'big point' player
Totally agree.... and with Roddick you know (more or less) what you are going to get, from match to match, and against any opponent. With Blake it's far less predictable, even now. He can catch fire and be very, very destructive - yet, at other times, he can seem something rather less than a mature top 10 player.
I would always go with Roddick over five sets, and certainly against most players. He actually has a grinder mentality of working his way through the points in order to achieve a a win - as clearly demonstrated in his "I'm going to weather this hurricane" - third-round performance against Fernando Verdasco, at last year's US Open.
Separate names with a comma.