What's the difference? (Roddick Forehand)

[pierretennis]

Originally Posted by m27

will you drop the french gimmick already? its obvious this is a prank (or you're a colossal maroon).

m27,

I may be a maroon, but at least I can spell MORON. What is it about you Americans that choose to hate those who disagree with you?

Pierremaroon

[pierretennis]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Pierre,

This is utterly ridiculous. Who are you comparing his forehand to? Gasquet, Mauresmo, Santoro? Indeed, with the likes of Sampras, Aggassi, Blake, Courier, Arias, and yes Roddick, one could argue that America has created some of the biggest forehands in the last 10-15 years.

The only thing "French" about Roddick in recent years, is his inability to win.

Chico9166,

I do not understand your comment. NamRanger say that Andy change his forehand and he is right, do you not agree?

Andy is American, but his game, Benhabiles build it and make Andy success in pro tennis, not American coach. Andy make #1 with big serve and forehand, then he work together with American coaches, and he change forehand to today. Maybe you do not know this, but the French people like Andy very much because he make first big success with French coach.

I do not compare Andy to French players at all. The French players today make better backhand, not forehand. Look at Gasquet forehand… Disaster! Maybe Grosjean make his forehand better than backhand.

Also, do you know that most players you list, they make their success with coach who learn their tennis from somewhere not America?

By example, Sampras learn his techniques from the famous Lansdorp who learn to play tennis in Holland, but he never coach anywhere but in California.

Courier, he make #1 and 4 Grand Slams when he work together with Higueras from Spain, and the fathers of Agassi and Arias, both guys immigrants to America, taught the forehand their sons make famous.

Interesting, yes?

Pierre

[Bottle Rocket]

Originally Posted by NamRanger

Thought it would be a fun idea since Roddick is one of the few pros who made a huge technical change to one of his primary strokes.

What I find most interesting about this whole discussion is that most everyone responds to this question assuming the change Andy made was a mistake. People blame his coaches, blame him, call him stupid, and claim that his forehand is crap now. His success and consistency says otherwise.

I don't have much to say about his technique, other than that I don't think the changes are real significant and his technique changes are very hard to compare. You can look at videos of Federer hitting forehands in different situations and find some significant differences, even in a single game in one specific match. The best players can adapt their swing/technique depending on the situation and this is where I think Roddick lacks a bit. As others have mentioned, this is also what makes it so difficult to compare strokes from completely different situations.

Anyway, I don't have a big problem with his change. All I know is that he has been ending the year in the top 10 or near the top 10 for an impressively long time. I don't know anyone else from the top 10 that has been there with him for that long, other than Federer. Interestingly, there have been significant gripes floating around this board about Federer changing his style over the years as well. At the end of the day, Roddick has been right up there with the top players for 6 or 7 years now and without the evolution of his game, it is possible he might have ended up like guys like Ferrero. This is obviously speculation, but why always assume that his change was a bad thing?

Maybe we're simply underrestimating the intelligence of Roddick and the coaches that helped him to adapt and evolve?

I haven't looked up the stats, but I suspect his matches are significantly cleaner now than 5 years ago. I'll bet his unforced errors have steadily decreased over the years and this seems like one of most noticable changse in the game in the last 5 years or so for all players at the top. You have to able to play at the highest levels possible and still maintain great consistency. From what I can tell, he has adapted his game better over the years than almost any other player I have seen since I started watching tennis. (One may be tempted to bring up Nadal to prove me wrong, but I don't think Nadal has adapted his game. I think Nadal has simply gotten better, significantly better. Also, I've never seen Nadal change a game plan or change tactics as clearly as I've seen Roddick do between playing different opponents.)

Just as he puts incredible pressure on guys beacuse of his serve, which I think get's repeatedly underrated by members of this board, his incredibly consistent baseline game has clearly worked for him. It obviously hasn't worked for him well enough to get him to number 1, or to get him to the point of hitting winners past Federer in the slams, but it has worked for him. In all hnoesty, I just don't think he is good enough to do that. Not consistently enough to come out on top. He just can't do it.

In the much the same way that James Blake understands how to play tennis to give himself the best chance of winning (at the expensive of thousands of rants on this board about him changing nothing on a "bad day"), I think Roddick understands himself, the current game of tennis, and what works even more clearly.

I think there is a lot that one can learn from Roddick's game and his style of putting non-stop pressure on his opponents to come up with tremendous shots. I think being able to choose your moments to go for it carefully and intelligently is an underrated tennis skill that is being overshadowed by these young guys coming up that simply have more natural ability.

Anyway, just some thoughts streaming through my mind as I read through all these HopRoddick threads... Hopefully I didn't bore anyone to death or say something that will turn everyone against me. I also apologize in advance for not going back and proofreading.

Originally Posted by pierretennis

Chico9166,

I do not understand your comment. NamRanger say that Andy change his forehand and he is right, do you not agree?

Andy is American, but his game, Benhabiles build it and make Andy success in pro tennis, not American coach. Andy make #1 with big serve and forehand, then he work together with American coaches, and he change forehand to today. Maybe you do not know this, but the French people like Andy very much because he make first big success with French coach.

I do not compare Andy to French players at all. The French players today make better backhand, not forehand. Look at Gasquet forehand… Disaster! Maybe Grosjean make his forehand better than backhand.

Also, do you know that most players you list, they make their success with coach who learn their tennis from somewhere not America?

By example, Sampras learn his techniques from the famous Lansdorp who learn to play tennis in Holland, but he never coach anywhere but in California.

Courier, he make #1 and 4 Grand Slams when he work together with Higueras from Spain, and the fathers of Agassi and Arias, both guys immigrants to America, taught the forehand their sons make famous.

Interesting, yes?

Pierre

Hi pierre,

Yes, I disagree that Andy's forehand is flawed technically. Trust me, Andy could hit any type of shot you asked of him. He could literally, spin a ball over your head, or sear a hole through the back fence. In other words, he understands what causes what technically speaking.

Now, if you want to talk about how Roddick is using his forehand, than I think that is a debatable topic. My own opinion, and this is only my opinion, Roddick just doesn't have the confidence to step up in the court and try to dictate points like he use to. I also think he simply matches up poorly against Fed and Nadal. They are just too skilled defensively for Andy.

For the record, I think Tarik did a real good job with Roddick. But he certainly didn't "build his forehand". That my friend, was done long before they ever met. I just don't think Andy believes he can play that type of pressing game any more. Which would explain why he is spinning the ball more. So much of the game at that level depends on confidence, and it trandcends technique. They all can hit the ball.

Take care,

chico

[pierretennis]

Originally Posted by Bottle Rocket

Maybe we're simply underrestimating the intelligence of Roddick and the coaches that helped him to adapt and evolve?

It obviously hasn't worked for him well enough to get him to number 1, or to get him to the point of hitting winners past Federer in the slams, but it has worked for him. In all hnoesty, I just don't think he is good enough to do that. Not consistently enough to come out on top. He just can't do it.

Mr. Roddick's intelligence is unparalleled. Maybe it is the coaches? Maybe it is mediocre forehand technique being taught by Americans? Tarik build the forehand, now it is mediocre. How come?

Secondly, do you forget that Andy won a Grand Slam title and was #1 in the world? You speak of him as though he's never made it to the top.

Pierre

[pierretennis]

Originally Posted by chico9166

Hi pierre,

Yes, I disagree that Andy's forehand is flawed technically. Trust me, Andy could hit any type of shot you asked of him. He could literally, spin a ball over your head, or sear a hole through the back fence. In other words, he understands what causes what technically speaking.

Now, if you want to talk about how Roddick is using his forehand, than I think that is a debatable topic. My own opinion, and this is only my opinion, Roddick just doesn't have the confidence to step up in the court and try to dictate points like he use to. I also think he simply matches up poorly against Fed and Nadal. They are just too skilled defensively for Andy.

For the record, I think Tarik did a real good job with Roddick. But he certainly didn't "build his forehand". That my friend, was done long before they ever met. I just don't think Andy believes he can play that type of pressing game any more. Which would explain why he is spinning the ball more. So much of the game at that level depends on confidence, and it trandcends technique. They all can hit the ball.

Take care,

chico

Chico,

You seem intelligent enough to know this. But if Mr. Roddick's forehand is not as fast nor has as much spin, would you know it? I doubt it. But Tarik knows it and laughs about it in our newspaper. Is that enough of a clue?

Pierre

[m27]

Originally Posted by pierretennis

m27,

I may be a maroon, but at least I can spell MORON. What is it about you Americans that choose to hate those who disagree with you?

Pierremaroon

1) Maroon is the word I was intending to use. Look it up, moron.
2) I'm not american.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by pierretennis

Chico,

You seem intelligent enough to know this. But if Mr. Roddick's forehand is not as fast nor has as much spin, would you know it? I doubt it. But Tarik knows it and laughs about it in our newspaper. Is that enough of a clue?

Pierre

Please post that article Pierre! Or just give us the gist if what he's saying