Originally Posted by TennisCJC
Roddick would have won 4-6 majors if not for RF. Roddick was a great player but not quite great enough to get by Fed. I think he could have handled most everyone else on grass and hard courts until Djokovic and Rafa picked up their hard court games in 2008-09. Even then a confident Roddick could have defeated anyone but Fed in the '09 Wimby final.
yeah even as a die hard roddick fan, winning more than 6 majors would be pushing it. i do think he would have kept the devestating 2003-2004 forehand without federer.
he would most likely win the following without RF
Wimbledon 2004- Probably would defeat Hewitt (defeated him in straight sets at Queens 2004, he was on fire for those two tournaments).
US Open 2006- I don't think Blake or Daveydenko would win against Roddick, Roddick revived his career in Cincy and the USO that year. His backhand was improved drastically under Jimmy Connors.
Wimbledon 2009- he destroyed murray in the semis and many agree he should have won that final, no way Haas beats him.
This would be approximately 4 grand slams. I think Roddick may have won (but not completely sure):
2007 Australian open- gonzo was on fire, not sure if Roddick would win.
2007 US Open- not sure roddick lost in the QF, could have lost in the SF before reaching the finals
Probably would have lost:
Wimbledon 2005- he was not in good form, hewitt would have 3-4 setted him easily.
Australian open 2009- nadal would tare roddick apart.
so without federer i think you're right, 4-6 grand slams.
but since he changed his game so much to try to beat federer (from being a big hitter to becoming a pusher), its hard to tell if he would have won more if he stayed the player he was in 2003-2004. With the improved backhand in 2006-2009, he would have been lethal off both wings IMO.