Originally Posted by 1477aces
roddick was clearly better. He had a better head to head, and if he hadn't gotten terribly unlucky with the rain delays in 04, he would have been world no. 1. The momentum from that match was huge, I bet fed wouldn't have reached 10 grand slams if he had lost that, and roddick would have at least 5 grand slams. Don't forget, had he won, he wouldn't have fired brad gilbert. As for djokovic, that pusher wouldn't have had a chance in hell against roddick, prime james blake, davydenko, marat safin, nalbandian, etc. Heck he probably would have lost el aynaiou. imagining djokovic trying to push on fast grass or on the old u.s open surface would be hilarious. Heck, even old man agassi could probably have beat "prime" pusher djokovic. Back in those days, people could hit the crap out of the ball randomly, like rosol did except even better and far more of them doing it far more frequently. A pusher like djokovic would have no chance except on clay.
Seriously have you been smoking CRACK, the reason he only has one slam is because of fed as fed smacked him about in slams right, But djoker has beat fed in slams and what was the h2h vs roddick and djoker from 2011 onwards?
PLEASE your embarrassing yourself.