Alright, I posted something similar to this in another thread, but the thread has been taken over by guys who think everything depends on the size of your biceps. I'd love to hear some opinions from the rest of you. I'm sorry if I am annoying anyone by posting this again. This is in response to the claim that Roddick just needs to HIT THE BALL when he plays Federer and was lucky to get a break in that second set. These are MY thoughts. First of all, Roddick is going to lose to Federer if he makes just a few errors in his own service games. He knows this as well as anyone, so he makes an obvious effort not to make errors. He needs to try and get forced or unforcered errors from Federer while still eliminating his own. Against Federer, he doesn't have a whole lot of other options. Federer returns too well for Roddick to play "loose" points. The pay-off when Roddick is purely aggressive, at this point in his career, and at this point in the men's game, just isn't going to get it done against guys like Federer. Saying that the match went 3-sets mainly due to Federer losing "like 8points in a row with some weird errors" is clearly biased. How did Roddick lose his service game in the first set? Did Roddick not lose a few points in a row with some "weird errors"? Or were those typical errors for Roddick during his own service games? Why is it that only Federer loses because of "weird errors", but Roddick doesn't? Anyway, look at their previous matches. Roddick can play out of his mind in terms of everyone's perception, such as hitting the ball harder than he ever has, being as aggressive as possible, etc..., but this never brought results against Federer. It never worked for him in the past. When he's won, he's been incredibly consistent, served incredibly well, and realized he isn't going to beat Federer from the baseline by hitting winners. Finally, to me, it is very clear that when it's crunch time, Roddick has no belief in his ability to beat Federer or any of the top players from the baseline (Except Djokovic, and I can't figure this one out). This is also, in my opinion, a large reason why he doesn't try to. You can see this in his matches against these players, Federer is a great example, when he is down a break point, or it's just a huge point in the match. He rarely sticks to his baseline game, this is when he goes on those suicide missions to the net. This is MY issue with Roddick's game, but I understand it. He just doesn't seem to have the belief that he can out-hit Federer or out-move Federer on a big point. He will rush the net, often on some terrible approach shot, and get passed. This is justified by Roddick because he never made an unforced error (as he obviously can't stand to make with his forehand), and got beat. It was "out of his hands" he might say? I don't know what exactly he would say, but this is clearly a belief issue to me. Roddick never went on this Kamakazi net rushes back in 03-04 on the biggest points. MY second issue with Roddick is his willingness to rally with Federer and other players almost exclusively with his backhand. In fact, I swear that I've seen him favor his backhand on a lot of nuetral balls that he could have easily taken with his forehand. I have never believed his backhand was terrible, but am sure that his forehand is better. I just don't he wants to lose with his forehand. It just looks to me like a belief/confidence issue in these big matches. He doesn't want to lose by using his best shot - his forehand. He seems unwilling to put that on the line, and maybe rightly so. If he hits his forehand as well as he possible can against Federer and still loses, what will that do to him? It is a much more comfortable loss for him if he loses with his second-best game - his net-rushing, or his backhand.