Rock'n roll or Symphony?

[fjgarciap]

Reading so many attacking and defending threads about Andy Roddick has made me sit back to think and try to find an explanation to the origin of such a debate of encountered feelings.

Tennis at the pro level is all about competition. It's not hot news to any of us that tennis is becoming more and more competitive these days, and that finesse and stroke gracefullness have gone to a second plane and receased to the benefit of physical factors (like power, endurance, quickness, etc.) and tech factors like court surface construction and/or enhancements, racquet and shoe technologies, etc..

Maybe we see Andy as a product of the "new tennis era" and compare his manners, his acing and forehand shotmaking ability to the more skillfull and inspired play of guys like Federer who can put a brake on that blasting kind of serves and win the most incredible points with amazing shots, shots that are also aesthetically nice to watch.

I watch both of them play and I feel as if I was listening rock'n roll versus a Beethoven's symphony, I don't know if you folks catch me, watching tennis the way guys like Fed plays it -serve, fore, back, return, volley, overhead; flat, spin, slice, kick; straight, crosscourt, parallel: all the shots, all the effects, all the directions- leaves me nothing left to do but to stand in front of my TV and clap my hands.

BUT pro tour players do not just play, they COMPETE. I give credit to Andy competing and winning and being world #1 with his rock'n roll but I PREFER The Simphony, as many of you folks do I guess -even interpreted by other less talented but still inspiring players like Grosjean, Moya, Henman and others.

I do not hate Andy, what I don't like is his rock'n roll. Would be nice to read your comments folks.

[Ariel]

Good point, I believe that A-Dick's is not 'rock & roll', is something closer to 'trash metal'.

[AAAA]

It will be interesting to see tomorrow what Roddick's game plan is?

[AAAA]

Roddick hasn't rolled his opponents like Federer; i don't think Roddick is playing as well as last year but tomorrow is another day.

[Kevin T]

While I much prefer the aesthetic appeal of Federer's playing style, I'll always take rock and roll. They make the big bucks, get the hottest chicks, have the best parties and generally promote chaos and havoc. Symphony guys sit at home with their Mom on friday night.

[mlee2]

Rock n roll would be a good term to describe roddick's style of tennis.

Most of his shots are done in mid-air and he also shows a lot more of a "hyper" type of energy.

A lot of people prefer Roger's "sublime/effortless" style of tennis and that's fine.

But there's also some of us who appreciate the kind of athleticism and energy it takes to be as "hyper" as Roddick is.

For some reason, I have a feeling most of the Roddick haters on this board are not high-level players or have minimal tournament experience.

The people I meet in real life whom most appreciate Roddick are experienced guys playing D1 tennis, and very aware of how hard his game truly is, as well as how tiring it can to maintain the kind of competitive attitude Roddick has.

[Don Felder]

I've softened my stance towards Andy a lot in the last year or so... I still wouldn't call myself an Andy fan but you gotta appreciate what he has done. Aesthetically pleasing game? Hell no. Effective? You bet. Great sportsman? Hell no. Great competitor? You bet.

[alienhamster]

*Great* thread, here. Very thought-provoking . . .

JUst to complicate things a bit. The original poster says the following: "Maybe we see Andy as a product of the 'new tennis era' and compare his manners, his acing and forehand shotmaking ability to the more skillfull and inspired play of guys like Federer who can put a brake on that blasting kind of serves and win the most incredible points with amazing shots, shots that are also aesthetically nice to watch."

I think a really common fallacy on this board and elsewhere is to set up the opposition Roddick/Federer = Power/Grace. Roddick is certainly more spastic than Federer, no question. But Federer is by far one of the most powerful hitters out there. A non-power player would be more typified by someone like Santoro, who has to constantly come up with a variety of surprising shots since he doesn't have the raquet head speed of Roddick and Federer. Because Federer is "smooth," people tend to under-represent him as a power player. Yeah, his serve has placement, but it's *heavy.* His forehand is accurate but lethal.

For some reason, there is a strong desire to create polar oppositions like this that erase underlying similarities. And this usually leads to the idealization of one (Federer, grace) and villification of the other (Roddick, muscle). Pretty arbirtrary, actually, and I can't understand why different kinds of games can't be equally awe-inspiring.

[yee]

Great analysis.

Which is why it should be an intriguing match to watch these two plays. I just hope this "new improved" Andy does have more to offer this time round than the previous matches. Everybody had said how much these two had improved, will be exciting to see what the outcome will be.

[robbie_dademo]

i love roddicks game how he is so jumpy its great to watch i reckon i love his style as well even if you guys hate it, the service motion is original and love his groundies!

just my thoughts!

[pound cat]

Here's Andy's comment:

""We do play different types of games. He's more flash, feel and artistry. The one advantage I have over him is just hitting the crap out of the ball."