Andy Roddick

[bluetrain4]

How is "official" retirement handled by the ATP? Seems like they simply remove the retiring player from the computer. Makes sense. But, does Roddick have to file some formal papers to make that happen.

This is in contrast to players who don't really fully retire officially, maybe thinking they'll play again, and their ranking drops week after week.

[Cesc Fabregas]

Originally Posted by Mustard

List of Roddick's coaches:

Tarik Benhabiles (1999-2003)
Brad Gilbert (2003-2004)
Dean Goldfine (2005-2006)
John Roddick (2006)
Jimmy Connors (2006-2008 )
Larry Stefanki (2009-Present Day)

Dean Goldfine and John Roddick were poor coaches.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Dean Goldfine and John Roddick were poor coaches.

Goldfine did a lot better with Todd Martin.

[droliver]

Originally Posted by WARPWOODIE

He did not develop a slice or kick serve for variety. And his backhand was not the best (there is a thread on this in the Junior section) as Agassi stated in an on air commentary. If he just worked on these elemental flaws, than I think he would not be just another "one slam wonder", but a career with at least 3-4 other grand slams.

1. His kick serve was one of the best on tour
2. He was only a few points away from 3-4 majors. It took incredibly bad luck not to bag at least one of those. His 2 strengths (serve/FH) were in fact really that good that he was one of the best players on the planet for a decade.

[Qubax]

It's weird seeing Roddick in the former player section.

Frankly, I am not ready for that yet.

[robow7]

Originally Posted by droliver

1. His kick serve was one of the best on tour

I'm not sure anyone had a second serve as fast as his, maybe ever, but I was always surprised that it didn't do more damage. It seemed like most everyone was just able to block it back and neutralize the advantage.

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Roddick seemed like a different player shortly after Federer became #1. When Roddick first became well known, his forehand was the biggest shot in the game. That forehand and his huge serve made Roddick the hier apparent to Sampras. But, somewhere along the line, he seemed to lose that power, and his forehand became more of a defensive loop than the bomb it was at first.

well i'm not so sure about that,

first of all, i couldn't stand the hype surrounding roddick 02..03.

i personally always thought fed/nalby/safin/haas and scud were more talented...and personally looking long term saw titles.

but back to arod...liked him alot...but sampras comparisons LOL

tbh nalbandian was outplaying him before he injured wrist in 4th set
and had another mental meltdown.

2003 was a bum year in quality..safin/haas/pete all off tour.

roddick took advantage of this so credit to him.

at the end of the day i'm glad he won at least 1 slam...because fed did deny him a few times.

[Rock Strongo]

Originally Posted by Qubax

It's weird seeing Roddick in the former player section.

Frankly, I am not ready for that yet.

I have to agree with you. It's just so... wrong.

Originally Posted by droliver

1. His kick serve was one of the best on tour
2. He was only a few points away from 3-4 majors. It took incredibly bad luck not to bag at least one of those. His 2 strengths (serve/FH) were in fact really that good that he was one of the best players on the planet for a decade.

but it took incredibly good luck to get his only slam. cuts both ways.

[tennisplayer1993]

I've been a roddick fan forever. I feel like over the years he has definitely became more mature of a man. I still remember his childish antics on the court but I felt his evolution from turning pro in 2000 to retiring now has changed him into a more humble person. He was a very raw player back in 2000-2002. a guy with a big serve and a huge forehand but he had a weak backhand (which he had for the majority of his young career). In 2003, I was in awe when I saw him win his first grand slam. I personally thought he would have an Agassi type of career meaning he would lose a few grand slams and win his first later because of his one dimensionality (i'm a huge roddick fan but i wasn't delusional about his very narrow yet effective game back then). I'm still upset he got rid of Gilbert, I miss the power hitting Roddick used to bring. his 100 mph forehands along with 140mph-150mph first serves. I will always remember Roddick's warrior mentality of trying his best for example, the 2004 and 2009 wimbledon finals. Two matches that I believe he should have won. I miss the old roddick to be honest the one who wore reebok and hit the ball has hard as he could. Roddick was so so for a few years in 2005-2006. But I also noticed he changed his game a lot and had more variety with his backhand. But as everyone said, I could see he had limited talent but his consistency always kept him up in the top 10 for like forever. I love roddick but a lot of me thinks that if he kept Gilbert, that 2003 US open grand slam wouldn't have been his only one. I still believe he should have won at least one wimbledon (aka the 2009 match which the backhand volley messed up everything =/). To me, parts of Roddick's career is what-ifs. If he won the 2009 wimbledon, I don't think he would have retired this early. Ever since that match, his ability to stay at an elite tennis level dipped quite a bit in 2010-2012.

Still my favorite player but since I know him since 2000 (been to two or three of his matches in the era of 2000-2002 at the us open). It's just a shame he couldn't follow agassi's footsteps and win 7-8 grand slams.

Originally Posted by robow7

I'm not sure anyone had a second serve as fast as his, maybe ever, but I was always surprised that it didn't do more damage. It seemed like most everyone was just able to block it back and neutralize the advantage.

it did do damage. roddick could not back it up.

[tennisplayer1993]

Originally Posted by decades

but it took incredibly good luck to get his only slam. cuts both ways.

no he was playing his life out in the summer of 2003. had a 37-1 record. it wasn't luck he was just playing the best tennis of his life. he beat federer in that run and many good players. winning grand slams isn't based on luck.

Originally Posted by tennisplayer1993

no he was playing his life out in the summer of 2003. had a 37-1 record. it wasn't luck he was just playing the best tennis of his life. he beat federer in that run and many good players. winning grand slams isn't based on luck.

he was lucky fed got knocked out early. he was lucky to beat nalbandian in the semis. he was lucky that usta favored him with scheduling. he was lucky that JCF was exhausted in the final for playing to much late in the tournament. but I agree with you. he deserved to be a grand slam champion. and he is.

[tennisplayer1993]

Originally Posted by decades

he was lucky fed got knocked out early. he was lucky to beat nalbandian in the semis. he was lucky that usta favored him with scheduling. he was lucky that JCF was exhausted in the final for playing to much late in the tournament.

yeah i have to admit if nalbandian didn't beat federer, that 2003 us open trophy probably would have been his. and if nalbandian won that semi match he would have won the whole thing.

[rkelley]

Roddick had a monster second serve, but it was still a second serve. People like Federer could return it. His first serve was not only breathtaking for its brutal pace, but also because of its incredible consistency. Roddick would hit over 70% first serves a lot, often winning close to 90% of the points where he landed that first serve. Against the top guys, especially Federer, he should have just bombed that thing in on both serves. If you do the math, and I have, at 70% first serves and winning 85% of those points he wins more points than he does if he hits a second serve, where his winning percentage against guys like Federer is a lot lower. Also, the match is on his racquet at that point.

[dman72]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Roddick had a monster second serve, but it was still a second serve. People like Federer could return it. His first serve was not only breathtaking for its brutal pace, but also because of its incredible consistency. Roddick would hit over 70% first serves a lot, often winning close to 90% of the points where he landed that first serve. Against the top guys, especially Federer, he should have just bombed that thing in on both serves. If you do the math, and I have, at 70% first serves and winning 85% of those points he wins more points than he does if he hits a second serve, where his winning percentage against guys like Federer is a lot lower. Also, the match is on his racquet at that point.

Except that you can guarantee that his second serve percentage bombing second serves would probably dip below that of his 1st serve, because of the inherent pressure involved with trying to make sure the ball lands in. So the math gets a bit trickier.

[rkelley]

Originally Posted by dman72

Except that you can guarantee that his second serve percentage bombing second serves would probably dip below that of his 1st serve, because of the inherent pressure involved with trying to make sure the ball lands in. So the math gets a bit trickier.

I agree there's a psychological aspect to it. But against Fed, after the the first ten or so straight loses, you'd think that Roddick would need to try something different. The two first serves, for Roddick, is a reasonable play.

Listen to Agassi's thoughts on Roddick vs. Federer right before the 2007 QF match at the US Open. It starts at about 6:00 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcZFVQCfOQg

Agassi is brutally honest.

[Qubax]

I am almost totally hopeless that Andy will ever make a comeback. I'd put it at 5%, that said I think there is a much better chance then with Pete and Andre. Pete lost the desire all together and Agassi's body was beat to sh!t at the end there

[Qubax]

Lastly, I'll add that IF Roddick DID make a comeback. I would be like the happiest person on earth and would probably fly almost anywhere in the world to get a chance to see him play one last time

I did get to see him R.Williams in the 1st round of the open this year. I would fly home on thursday afternoon and Roddick would make his announcement when I was in the air.

I was devastated, but happy I got to see him.

[Qubax]

Originally Posted by rkelley

I agree there's a psychological aspect to it. But against Fed, after the the first ten or so straight loses, you'd think that Roddick would need to try something different. The two first serves, for Roddick, is a reasonable play.

Listen to Agassi's thoughts on Roddick vs. Federer right before the 2007 QF match at the US Open. It starts at about 6:00 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcZFVQCfOQg

Agassi is brutally honest.

Even in that match where Andy was overweight pre-stefanki Roddick hit the FH with a LOT more authority.