Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (
-   General Pro Player Discussion (
-   -   Roddick is a horrible tennis player (

Ariel 06-30-2004 07:30 PM

Roddick is a horrible tennis player
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.

david aames 06-30-2004 07:35 PM

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.

jun 06-30-2004 07:36 PM

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.

dander 06-30-2004 07:37 PM

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

Nadal2 06-30-2004 07:46 PM

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.

VamosRafa 06-30-2004 07:47 PM

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 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.


Rickson 06-30-2004 07:53 PM

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.

VamosRafa 06-30-2004 08:01 PM

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:


Q. You did have the right tactic on your serve today. You got on his backhand side. He had a lot of difficulty, particularly with your second serve today. Is that the biggest weakness in his game that you see?

SJENG SCHALKEN: No, I don't see a big weakness in his game. But that's why he's No. 1 or 2 in the world. At the moment he's No. 2. He doesn't have a weakness, I think.

The good thing he does, and he does that much better than when I beat him one time, that was three or four years ago, he lets me play all my shots all the time, and he's tough. When he used to play, he wanted to go for it a little bit more. But now he's just going for it in the service game with his serve, and the rest of the game is very solid. So he's doing very good.

Q. Who do you think is going to win?

SJENG SCHALKEN: I always lose in the quarterfinals, [t]o the guy who wins. So that's an easy question (smiling).

Q. Where would you rate his second serve? Is it one of the best? Where would you put it?

SJENG SCHALKEN: Yeah, I played Pete Sampras also a couple times. But Andy's serve, 125 miles an hour with kick, it's amazing. Because I played Enqvist, he's serving 125 flat, and I have troubles with that, and he puts kick on it also. It's an amazing serve.

Q. His second?

SJENG SCHALKEN: His second, yeah.

Q. Do you think it's the best in the game?

SJENG SCHALKEN: I thought Pete had the best.

Q. But now? Pete's out.

SJENG SCHALKEN: Yeah, maybe. One of the best. Maybe I forget a couple guys.

Q. You obviously went through quite a traumatic experience with him in Rome. Because of that, would you really like to see him win this event?

SJENG SCHALKEN: Yeah, well, I'm friends with many players who are still in the tournament, and Andy is one of them. Yeah, he's somebody who deserves it because he is just like Federer and a couple other players, always at the last four in the Grand Slams. So it's big achievement. If you're always there, at certain points you start winning now and then, like he did at the US Open.

corncob3466 06-30-2004 08:13 PM

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.

sarpmas 06-30-2004 08:22 PM

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.

perfmode 06-30-2004 08:24 PM

Andy's game isn't bad, it's just ugly.

Kinda like his coaches book...

SonicSpeed 06-30-2004 08:28 PM

Sjeng is a nice guy. :)

VamosRafa 06-30-2004 08:38 PM

Yeah, Sjeng is, but Andy was equally nice about Sjeng in his interview, at:

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


Q. Did you watch Serena's match with Jennifer and are you surprised at that result?

ANDY RODDICK: No. I was in the bathroom. I came out and it was done.

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 . . . .

corncob3466 06-30-2004 08:41 PM

lol, damn. thats cold.

i.Radical 06-30-2004 08:43 PM

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.

jun 06-30-2004 08:46 PM

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.

alienhamster 06-30-2004 08:53 PM

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.

fjgarciap 06-30-2004 08:57 PM

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.

Matt H. 06-30-2004 09:05 PM

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)

bcaz 06-30-2004 09:48 PM

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.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse