I've been watching some Roddick 2003 matches lately

[tennisplayer1993]

I just recently saw Agassi vs. Roddick in Queens Club 2003 (roddick won, last two sets were close but roddick blew out agassi in the first).

Something I immediately noticed was Roddick looked younger haha and was wearing Reebok.

I noticed that his serves had a lot more pace back then and he was pretty efficient with it. However, his groundstrokes were horrible.
His backhand was surprisingly a lot better than I remember it was back then, he hit quite a few winners with it. His forehand was extremely erratic, had a few nice winners but it didn't blow me away.

But when it came to RETURNS, wowzers... i was surprised that he had trouble returning agassi's serve. Most of his returns always hit the net.

To be perfectly honest, I was only about 10 when roddick had that great year in 2003 and I thought he was a great player (I may have overhyped him myself in my head).


What did you think of Roddick when he became nearly unstoppable when he linked up with brad gilbert from 2003 queens cup to the end of the us open (i believe his record was 37-2 during that stretch or something), did you think he was the real deal?


I remember watching him and I knew he was not going to win 10 grand slams or so (like many people were expecting). i was expecting 5 and at best 8. I thought roddick would win 2-3 wimbledons, one australian open (maybe, he kept making semis for a few years), and one or two us opens.


I think now I realize how Roddick was overhyped back then, I guess the match I watched opened that up for me but then I saw the match against ferrero in the US open final and I felt that roddick's groundstrokes improved drastically for the second half of that year.

Feel free to post any comments about my very long thread lol. I am just wondering how you guys responded to roddick's breakout year and if you felt he was going to win multiple slams AT the time.


Thanks!

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by tennisplayer1993

Something I immediately noticed was Roddick looked younger haha and was wearing Reebok.

That's generally the case when you look back. I don't mean the Reebok part.

I didn't pay much attention to tennis back in '03, but thanks to youtube I can catch up. As for Roddick, I was impressed with his '09 season. He worked hard and it showed.

[tennisplayer1993]

Originally Posted by slowfox

That's generally the case when you look back. I don't mean the Reebok part.

I didn't pay much attention to tennis back in '03, but thanks to youtube I can catch up. As for Roddick, I was impressed with his '09 season. He worked hard and it showed.

yeah '09 was great. i also enjoyed his '07 campaign quite a bit.

but my favorite year of him was 2004, fastest serve/100 mph forehands.

[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.

[tennisplayer1993]

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.

[tennisplayer1993]

also he probably would have Wimbledon 2003 over scud making it
5-7 grand slams imo

[Sadyv]

Originally Posted by tennisplayer1993

also he probably would have Wimbledon 2003 over scud making it
5-7 grand slams imo

Doubtful. Philippoussis was a much better grass court player at that time, and his serve was huge. Recall that he went to two tie breaks with Federer in the final. Wimbledon 2003 was Scud salvaging and making the most of the talent and ability he still had left at that time, which even after losing some to injuries and squandering some more through years of not nurturing, was still quite considerable.

[tennisplayer1993]

well roddick was on a huge winning streak and his mental game back then was very strong. he went 37-1 after that wimbledon. i think he would have won it.

[hoodjem]

I've often wondered how many slams Roddick would have won--if not for Federer?

But I am tempted to say "not that many."

Even at his best he was pretty much a serve and a forehand with an erratic and incomplete game.

[President]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I've often wondered how many slams Roddick would have won--if not for Federer?

But I am tempted to say "not that many."

Even at his best he was pretty much a serve and a forehand with an erratic and incomplete game.

Without Federer there was no consistent force to stop Roddick. While there were far more talented players around like Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, even Davydenko they were all very inconsistent. If Roddick had the confidence of winning more majors and not being destroyed by Federer so many times I'm sure he could have been a very steady face at the tail-end of majors. Tennis is a confidence game, and Federer destroyed Roddick's. Despite that, he was still one of the most mentally tough players on tour and I think that would have helped him a lot if Federer didn't exist.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Sadyv

Doubtful. Philippoussis was a much better grass court player at that time, and his serve was huge. Recall that he went to two tie breaks with Federer in the final. Wimbledon 2003 was Scud salvaging and making the most of the talent and ability he still had left at that time, which even after losing some to injuries and squandering some more through years of not nurturing, was still quite considerable.

no, he wasn't ....

the 3rd set in the final wasn't as close as the score suggests ... federer missed a sitter forehand on a BP , otherwise it wouldn't have gone to a TB ....

roddick had a SP in the first set in the semi .... federer won both TBs comfortably vs phillippoussis ...

both roddick and phillippoussis were playing at a similar level that wimbledon and it would have been a close match ..

[tennisplayer1993]

Originally Posted by abmk

no, he wasn't ....

the 3rd set in the final wasn't as close as the score suggests ... federer missed a sitter forehand on a BP , otherwise it wouldn't have gone to a TB ....

roddick had a SP in the first set in the semi .... federer won both TBs comfortably vs phillippoussis ...

both roddick and phillippoussis were playing at a similar level that wimbledon and it would have been a close match ..

yeah probably would have been a very close 4-5 setter. going either way.

[tennisplayer1993]

Originally Posted by President

Without Federer there was no consistent force to stop Roddick. While there were far more talented players around like Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, even Davydenko they were all very inconsistent. If Roddick had the confidence of winning more majors and not being destroyed by Federer so many times I'm sure he could have been a very steady face at the tail-end of majors. Tennis is a confidence game, and Federer destroyed Roddick's. Despite that, he was still one of the most mentally tough players on tour and I think that would have helped him a lot if Federer didn't exist.

Roddick wouldn't have won THAT many grand slams, I agree with the previous posts. Roddick was a hard worker, wasn't as talented as federer was (not even close). I think if Federer didn't exist, roddick wins 8 slams at most. anything more than that is ludicrous and this is coming from a roddick fan of 10+ years.

[Qubax]

Originally Posted by President

Without Federer there was no consistent force to stop Roddick. While there were far more talented players around like Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, even Davydenko they were all very inconsistent. If Roddick had the confidence of winning more majors and not being destroyed by Federer so many times I'm sure he could have been a very steady face at the tail-end of majors. Tennis is a confidence game, and Federer destroyed Roddick's. Despite that, he was still one of the most mentally tough players on tour and I think that would have helped him a lot if Federer didn't exist.

Great post!

That's really the "X" Factor with Roddick. His Compete level.

He was just such a bull dog.

Forget how lethal Roddick's serve was in a general sense. Was their any player in the last decade who was better then Roddick down 15-40 or 30-40 on serve?

Anyway, back on topic. Roddick has a meh backhand, ugh Volleys, Fugly movement etc., But Roddick had the serve, at times a decent FH he could ramp up, and an endless supply of give a damn.

Without Federer Roddick would have been vastly overated. Because he may have achieved 5-7 slams, but not really been any different as a player. He would have been compared with Agassi and his 8 slams, when in all reality Agassi was always milllllllllles ahead of Andy.

But believe me, if Andy was rockin' 6 slams. There would be a lot of folks making the mistake that Roddick was kinda close to Agassi.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Qubax

Great post!

That's really the "X" Factor with Roddick. His Compete level.

He was just such a bull dog.

Forget how lethal Roddick's serve was in a general sense. Was their any player in the last decade who was better then Roddick down 15-40 or 30-40 on serve?

Anyway, back on topic. Roddick has a meh backhand, ugh Volleys, Fugly movement etc., But Roddick had the serve, at times a decent FH he could ramp up, and an endless supply of give a damn.

Without Federer Roddick would have been vastly overated. Because he may have achieved 5-7 slams, but not really been any different as a player. He would have been compared with Agassi and his 8 slams, when in all reality Agassi was always milllllllllles ahead of Andy.

But believe me, if Andy was rockin' 6 slams. There would be a lot of folks making the mistake that Roddick was kinda close to Agassi.

Yep. Too many persons think close to same number of slams--same abilities and talent.

Nice turns of phrase: "meh backhand, ugh Volleys, Fugly movement"