Johansson beat Roddick 2004 US Open - Roddick won 24 points more than Johansson

Johansson beat defending champion Roddick in five sets in the quarter finals of the 2004 US Open even though Roddick won 24 points more than Johansson in the match.

Did Johansson deserve to win this match?

Did Roddick deserve to lose this match?

Should a player who wins less points in total in a match be declared the winner?

Should a player who wins more points in total in a match be declared the winner?

Roddick unclutching himself out of the tournament despite being the better player. Matches can be a coinflip when huge serves are involved, Roddick blinked at the wrong time and the match was over. Shame as the SF with Hewitt could have been great. The points advantage for Arod came mostly from an insane stretch he held on serve in the fourth IIRC. Weird match really...

This is like the less than rare case were the winner can be said not to be better than the loser.

I don't remember any such dominance ratio clusterfuck ever. Typical Roddick.

Those are quite stupid questions. The scoring system is an important part of tennis. An alternative race to X points or clock would take away all of the pivotal movements that come about during a match.

There are even matches were a player wins in straight sets and loses more points, often seen in 3 tie-break sets etc. Same with 4 sets.

Should the loser, who won more points, be declared the winner because they were able to reel off a few love service games and then to choke the tie-break or break points etc? Come on.

Ocean Drive said:

Those are quite stupid questions.

Click to expand...

If the scoring system is such an important (sacred) part of tennis, why are there so many differences in the final set tie breakers (if they are played at all) played at grand slams and why do they constantly change them?

Even repeat deuces have been eliminated in many grand slams in doubles recently and they continue to change them regularly.

In fact, many of the longest matches in grand slam history would have had their results reversed had the new tie breaker rules been changed at the time and / or repeat deuce rules been eliminated at the time.

Other sports have their scoring systems changed all the time.

The beauty of our sport is it’s not about how many it’s about what points you win. I loved Roddick and wanted him to win that match. But the better player in the bigger moment won on the day.

The implications are it encourages a player to tank and give up in a set or tiebreaker if they deem it a lost cause to win the set or tiebreaker.

How is this good for tennis or any sport?

Slasher said:

If the scoring system is such an important (sacred) part of tennis, why are there so many differences in the final set tie breakers (if they are played at all) played at grand slams and why do they constantly change them?

Even repeat deuces have been eliminated in many grand slams in doubles recently and they continue to change them regularly.

In fact, many of the longest matches in grand slam history would have had their results reversed had the new tie breaker rules been changed at the time and / or repeat deuce rules been eliminated at the time.

Other sports have their scoring systems changed all the time.

Click to expand...

You're talking about a final set tie break which constitutes a very small percentage of the entire match. You initially inferred that doing away with the traditional scoring system would be a beneficial move. As I've explained, it would be a catastrophically bad move and no, you won't be seeing that change any time soon.

Slasher said:

The implications are it encourages a player to tank and give up in a set or tiebreaker if they deem it a lost cause to win the set or tiebreaker.

How is this good for tennis or any sport?

Click to expand...

And the implications for the alternative are that it encourages a player to tank an entire match if they deem it a lost cause

You've not thought this through, have you?

If they wanted most points to win, they would have a scoring system to reflect that. A race to 100 points or something with servers changing every five points.

Regardless of the variety of 5th sets, the universal truism in tennis scoring is that most sets win. Everyone loves to obsess over set scores to paint a better picture of the match, but really all that matters is sets won. Scores should really be reported 3-0, 3-1, or 3-2 (I've actually seen that but it's not the norm) since it's the only thing that matters.

Is it unfair to win considerably more points and not the match? Not really since both players know the scoring system in advance. And, if a player wins that many more points but loses - then it just shows that they couldn't win points when it mattered most.

Players tanking an entire match if they deem it a lost cause...................that never ever happens in professional tennis

Do you live under a rock?

What motivates or forces a player to make the first set of a three set match or the first two sets of a five set match matter and count? The fact is they are not important and do not determine the match. They don't really matter and a player - if they want to - can just put all their effort into the last two sets of a three set match or the last three sets of a five set match - and conserve their energy until then and just play warm up hit up sets until then.

Doesn't this make tennis prone to sports betting manipulation?

Given who was on the other side of the net it's easy to say Pim Pim eventually got his sh1t together and served A-Rod off the court. But that explanation immediately becomes suspect when you realize that Andy had more aces (34 vs. 30), fewer DFs (5 vs. 6)... and a whopping 27.5% margin in unreturned serves (62.7% vs. 35.2%). In fact that 62.7% is the best % I've seen from Roddick so far (with the caveat that I haven't updated his #s in a while):


So yeah, it's almost impossible not to conclude that this was something of a choke from A-Rod. Not sure I can recall anyone losing with such an overwhelming edge in (service) freebies.

Slasher said:

Players tanking an entire match if they deem it a lost cause...................that never ever happens in professional tennis

Do you live under a rock?

What motivates or forces a player to make the first set of a three set match or the first two sets of a five set match matter and count? The fact is they are not important and do not determine the match. They don't really matter and a player - if they want to - can just put all their effort into the last two sets of a three set match or the last three sets of a five set match - and conserve their energy until then and just play warm up hit up sets until then.

Doesn't this make tennis prone to sports betting manipulation?

Click to expand...

You're completely lost, and it seems as though you don't understand tennis.

Go follow a new sport, is my advice.

Generally, the player that wins, plays better to some degree.

That's great that Roddick won more points, but it doesn't matter if he didn't win. I shed no tears for him.

Besides, it saved him from getting blitzed by Fed in the final.

Are you claiming tennis has not evolved regarding the scoring system since its inception? I am the one that doesn't understand or know anything about tennis?

A margin of 24 points in a match is massive and should not go unrewarded or ignored.

An idea would be to allocate a score based on the standard sets won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard games won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard points won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) to determine the winner - including leaving the set score as a 6-6 draw - then simply moving to the next set - with no tiebreakers played.

Of course, it is very difficult to do when written records of each individual point are not kept.

It's a funny question for me because I routinely reserved my energy in the event of a 3 game deficit in a set I didn't need to win. I was in many ways better on return than serve so breaks didn't matter much to me, but in particular 1-4 deficits I'd plan for the next set. But you're not even talking games here but total points which is even more bananas. I could be facing a really good server and just focusing on my next service game in 0-30 holes and he plays me tougher. That might create pretty huge disparities in point totals since a love hold and Ad or 40-30 hold is a 2 point differential. Have just a couple of those a set multiplied by 3 and it's 12 point difference plus winning game in the last set in a Bo3.

Like...okay?

In the 99 French Open Final, Medvedev won 2 additional games over Agassi and I imagine a lot more points, but who cares? Find me one person.

Johansson was fire that whole tournament until Hewitt. I wouldn't go so far as to say Roddick choked as much as Johansson played well.

BGod said:

It's a funny question for me because I routinely reserved my energy in the event of a 3 game deficit in a set I didn't need to win. I was in many ways better on return than serve so breaks didn't matter much to me, but in particular 1-4 deficits I'd plan for the next set. But you're not even talking games here but total points which is even more bananas. I could be facing a really good server and just focusing on my next service game in 0-30 holes and he plays me tougher. That might create pretty huge disparities in point totals since a love hold and Ad or 40-30 hold is a 2 point differential. Have just a couple of those a set multiplied by 3 and it's 12 point difference plus winning game in the last set in a Bo3.

Like...okay?

In the 99 French Open Final, Medvedev won 2 additional games over Agassi and I imagine a lot more points, but who cares? Find me one person.

Johansson was fire that whole tournament until Hewitt. I wouldn't go so far as to say Roddick choked as much as Johansson played well.

Click to expand...

You might care about the Hingis/Graf final then. Hingis hit more winners but still lost the match. People were more invested in who won that one. The men's tour has been drab forever, now.

This match is a textbook example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

Slasher said:

Are you claiming tennis has not evolved regarding the scoring system since its inception? I am the one that doesn't understand or know anything about tennis?

A margin of 24 points in a match is massive and should not go unrewarded or ignored.

An idea would be to allocate a score based on the standard sets won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard games won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard points won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) to determine the winner - including leaving the set score as a 6-6 draw - then simply moving to the next set - with no tiebreakers played.

Of course, it is very difficult to do when written records of each individual point are not kept.

Click to expand...

This just sounds like Roddick fan kvetching.

Every pro has played their entire career with the current scoring system (for the most part, some settings have minor tweaks). If you want to change the scoring system to something that doesn't result in 5+ hour 5 set matches and is more closely tied to actual points won, that's fine. Don't base these concerns on a match in which Roddick lost to a player who, frankly, deserved to win with how he was playing.

I don't really agree with the premise of this thread with regards to the scoring system but I will say the match makes my blood boil.

24 points is worth to note but the 1.65 DR might be more damning. I agree with what NatF said that the huge differential was built from the 28 consecutive points Roddick won on serve between the 3rd-4th sets.

JJ played well enough to cluster those 3 breaks (had some great returns) but he was aided by a Roddick DF in each of the 3 games. Roddick also blew some BPs (3/15 overall) especially that major one in the 5th at 4-4 which could've let him serve for the match. So yes, you can definitely argue there was choking involved on Roddicks end. To further show my bitterness, there were a couple of bad calls that went against Roddick too. His return when he had BP at 4-5 30-40 in the second set was actually in (barely grazed the line) but called out and also at 0-0 30-30 in the 5th set when JJ's serve was actually out but called good and JJ won the point. No Hawkeye back then.

I'll give JJ some credit. He did play well. His serve/FH was really clicking and he was clutch on some of the BPs Roddick had (saved them with aggressive play). The conditions that night were tough too cause of the wind which obviously impacted both guys. Roddick was more conservative for sure compared to the first 4 rounds. JJ was more willing to unleash that monstrous FH of his.

At the end, its definitely a match I feel Roddick shouldve won but the scoring system is what it is.

Just for the record, I actually favour Johansson over Roddick. I don't hate either of them in particular. However, I didn't like the way Roddick carried on with the umpire and match officials on some occasions - although he might have had a point - you don't use that kind of language on live sports which are broadcast.

I did enjoy watching Johansson serve. His height and reach made serving look easy and his serves were unreturnable.

The weakness of Johansson - as it is for Cilic, Raonic and Del Potro is the ball which comes through to them at below one third knee height. They are very difficult for a tall player to dig out and return with enough control and power.

If a player wants to concede or forfeit a point, a game, a set, or a match, why don't they have the power to do this?

The umpire has the power to take a point, a game, a set or a match from a player for certain violations - subject to the tournament or International Tennis Federation rules.

Also, I don't have a view regarding the question and haven't voted and I think their are flaws with changing the scoring system and flaws with not changing the scoring system.

The idea of a score based on the standard sets won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard games won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) and / or the standard points won / lost (perhaps a percentage ratio) to determine the winner - including leaving the set score as a 6-6 draw - then simply moving to the next set - with no tiebreakers played - would be based on a formula of all three in certain ratios - all combined. During a professional match where statistics are kept in real time, they would be shown in real time on a scoreboard. The players may not be able to process exactly what they need to do to win. The advantage of this is that the player must try their best at all times to maintain their lead as the effects of the formula would be unpredictable. For example, the weightings of the total sets scores and total games scores may be higher than the weighting for the total point score or vice versa - or any combination thereof.

In some olympics events where there are heats, quarter finals, semi finals and then finals, you could set a world record in the heats and then not go through to the finals or get an olympic medal. A lot would view this as unfair and making a mockery of the credibility of the event.

BGod said:

It's a funny question for me because I routinely reserved my energy in the event of a 3 game deficit in a set I didn't need to win. I was in many ways better on return than serve so breaks didn't matter much to me, but in particular 1-4 deficits I'd plan for the next set. But you're not even talking games here but total points which is even more bananas. I could be facing a really good server and just focusing on my next service game in 0-30 holes and he plays me tougher. That might create pretty huge disparities in point totals since a love hold and Ad or 40-30 hold is a 2 point differential. Have just a couple of those a set multiplied by 3 and it's 12 point difference plus winning game in the last set in a Bo3.

Like...okay?

In the 99 French Open Final, Medvedev won 2 additional games over Agassi and I imagine a lot more points, but who cares? Find me one person.

Johansson was fire that whole tournament until Hewitt. I wouldn't go so far as to say Roddick choked as much as Johansson played well.

Click to expand...

Medvedev won 7 more points than Agassi. Not in the same ballpark as 24, it’s almost hard to believe it happened(and I thought that watching in 2004).