Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennisplayer1993, Dec 21, 2012.
Which one was better in your opinion? Explain.
Well if we are just talking finals of both tournaments I would say 2009. But for the tournament as a whole I think his level in 2004 overall was much higher for the fortnight.
His run to the final in 2009 was by and large on heart. He pushed himself through every match on sheer hunger. In 2004 his game was amazing, heart and hunger..Fed was just on another planet. Andy was clearly #2 on grass and proved it every match in 2004 (even the final was a close 4 sets). 2009 he struggled a lot but just willed himself on..all heart.
Its close...but I think 2004 Andy was better.
2004 was better, but there's nothing he could have done against peak Federer.
2004 was better. He played so well and had he held that 7th game of the 3rd set might have even won the match over peak Federer. He would have beaten anyone else that year and IMO was almost a bit unlucky in the final as he dictated most of the baseline rallies in that match, but some poor play on big points, and some ill advised approaches to the net cost him the match. 2009 he played great, but he was playing a much weaker Federer who that day was a serve only player and still lost, and faced a tenative and visibly sluggish Murray in the semis, and nearly lost in the quarters to an old Hewitt who injured himself in the 5th set. Probably benefited from Nadal not playing Wimbledon that year as well (as did Federer).
If only Roddick could volley better? He would have taken the 2009 W title.
But alas, no one vollies anymore, and no one thinks it's relevant.
Let's put it this way, it was an easy volley that most 4.0 players would make. I'm sure John McEnroe at his current age would love to have that volley right now for the Wimbledon title.
I'm not sure which Wimbledon was the better performance but I do know he was closer to winning in the 2009 Wimbledon final.
I really felt for him in 2009. I'm a huge Fed fan, but Roddick would have been a very deserving winner that year.
I'd say the Wimbledon 2004 final was a better performance quality wise by Roddick (and also by Federer). Although he was closer to winning in 2009 (mainly because of Federer not playing so well) he played better in 2004.
Yeah, had a lot of respect for Roddick's overall performance for most of 2009.
I guess he said he thought he would leave the ball. In the last moment he found that the ball is dipping in and tried to volley. I guess he made a change in the last moment. Taht's what he said. Pardon me if am wrong, this is what I honestly remember about that
You may well be right. That would explain a lot.
But changing your mind at the last instant is a recipe for failure in tennis.
Here are Roddick's runs:
R128: Andy Roddick def. Jimmy Wang (6-3, 7-5, 6-4)
R64: Andy Roddick def. Alexander Peya (6-3, 7-6, 6-4)
R32: Andy Roddick def. Taylor Dent (6-3, 7-6, 7-6)
R16: Andy Roddick def. Alexander Popp (7-5, 6-4, 6-4)
QF: Andy Roddick def. Sjeng Schalken (7-6, 7-6, 6-3)
SF: Andy Roddick def. Mario Ancic (6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 7-5)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
R128: Andy Roddick def. Jeremy Chardy (6-3, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3)
R64: Andy Roddick def. Igor Kunitsyn (6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2)
R32: Andy Roddick def. Jurgen Melzer (7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 6-3)
R16: Andy Roddick def. Tomas Berdych (7-6, 6-4, 6-3)
QF: Andy Roddick def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-3, 6-7, 7-6, 4-6, 6-4)
SF: Andy Roddick def. Andy Murray (6-4, 4-6, 7-6, 7-6)
FR: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)
Statisically, it's 2004, but beating Hewitt and Murray in 2009 are bigger names than anyone he beat in 2004.
Obviously 2004. Higher level of play
any more thoughts?
Statisically, 2004 might be better, winning in straight sets more often and at a higher level throughout,(younger Roddick), but look at Roddick's overall 2009 Wimbledon. His route looks tougher and he beat players like Melzer, Berdych, Hewitt and Andy Murray, then pushing Federer to 16-14 in a titanic five-set struggle. I would be more proud of Wimby 2009 myself. There's a lot to be said for heart.
I forgot how tough his 2009 draw actually was. Look at all those tie breaks. Kind of makes me want to rethink and tip the scales in favor of 2009. He had to be playing well to get through that.
2004 final by a bit , but there isn't that much to chose b/w them tbh ....
2009 is getting underrated here, Roddick in 2004 was playing great but the draw wasn't nearly as tough as his 2009 draw where he beat some VERY tough opponents (including home favorite and world #3 Andy Murray) to get to the final.
Yeah, I just noticed that too. A lot of Roddick's 2004 draw were no names besides dangerous players like Taylor Dent (who was a massive server back in the day) and Grosjean (who was consistently reaching wimby semis for a few years in a row, a good grass player, played Roddick in the finals at Queens 2004 that year). Also Ancic was a dangerous grass court player back then.
But in 2009, he beat one of his long time rivals, Hewitt. He beat a very dangerous player in Berdych in 3 sets. He beat Murray in 4 sets. And made a great marathon final with Federer
All things considered, his level of performance in 2004 was undoubtedly higher overall. He was at his prime level of performance.
However, in 2009 he made a great run through a hard road to the final which made for much more of a story given that he was reaching the twilight of his formidable years.
Both were great, just depends on which way you look at it.
Schenken lost at Wimby in the QF in 2002 to Leyton Hewitt, then lost in the QF in 2003 to Roger Federer, then lost in the QF in 2004 to Andy Roddick. Some decent grass courters. Ancic reached two wimby QF and one SF.
These players weren't so easy to beat either.
Separate names with a comma.