Dimitrov vs. Roddick. If Andy Roddick had been born about a decade later, would he realistically achieve more than Dimitrov in the Big 3 era?

How would Andy Roddick perform in the 2010-2017 Big 3 days?

  • About as well as Tsonga, Berdych and (a bit later) Dimitrov.

    Votes: 8 25.8%

  • Worse than Tsonga, Berdych and (a bit later) Dimitrov.

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Better than Tsonga, Berdych and (a bit later) Dimitrov.

    Votes: 18 58.1%
  • Total voters
    31
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Big 3 were not at their peak in 2003 (Djokovic wasn't even playing on the ATP). Roddick is 3-21 against Federer, including a mortifying 0-8 at Slams.

Obviously, most people would rank Roddick's career ahead of players like Berdych, Tsonga or (a bit later) Dimitrov who couldn't win Grand Slams because of peaking in the same era as the Big 3.

Roddick won his one and only US Open facing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. As soon as Federer emerged, he had no chance.

Roddick became world #1 In a transition year with Federer being non-peak (outside grass) and Agassi being too old to compete for the #1 at that stage. As soon as Federer peaked across all surfaces in 2004, Roddick had no chance to obtain the #1 spot. Roddick became #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, with easier competition.

Another issue is that Berdych and Tsonga were competitive at all Grand Slams on all surfaces. I'm yet to see a QF from Roddick at RG.

All of this leads me to think that Roddick would just be another very good 2nd tier player like Tsonga, Berdych or Dimitrov had he been born about a decade later. He would be consistently blocked by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic on grass, and he would obviously struggle even more on hard courts and clay. Do you agree with me?
 
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
Sport said:
Big 3 were not at their peak in 2003 (Djokovic wasn't even playing on the ATP). Roddick is 3-21 against Federer, including a mortifying 0-8 at Slams.

Obviously, most people would rank Roddick's career ahead of players like Berdych, Tsonga or (a bit later) Dimitrov who couldn't win Grand Slams because of peaking in the same era as the Big 3.

Roddick won his one and only US Open facing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. As soon as Federer emerged, he had no chance.

Roddick became world #1 In a transition year with Federer being non-peak (outside grass) and Agassi being too old to compete for the #1 at that stage. As soon as Federer peaked across all surfaces in 2004, Roddick had no chance to obtain the #1 spot. Roddick became #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, with easier competition.

Another issue is that Berdych and Tsonga were competitive at all Grand Slams on all surfaces. I'm yet to see a QF from Roddick at RG.

All of this leads me to think that Roddick would just be another very good 2nd tier player like Tsonga, Berdych or Dimitrov had he been born a decade later. He would be consistently blocked by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic on grass, and he would obviously struggle even more on hard courts and clay. Do you agree with me?
Click to expand...
Peak Thiem vs Peak Roddick 20 matches at each slam?
 
Holmes

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Sport said:
Big 3 were not at their peak in 2003 (Djokovic wasn't even playing on the ATP). Roddick is 3-21 against Federer, including a mortifying 0-8 at Slams.

Obviously, most people would rank Roddick's career ahead of players like Berdych, Tsonga or (a bit later) Dimitrov who couldn't win Grand Slams because of peaking in the same era as the Big 3.

Roddick won his one and only US Open facing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. As soon as Federer emerged, he had no chance.

Roddick became world #1 In a transition year with Federer being non-peak (outside grass) and Agassi being too old to compete for the #1 at that stage. As soon as Federer peaked across all surfaces in 2004, Roddick had no chance to obtain the #1 spot. Roddick became #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, with easier competition.

Another issue is that Berdych and Tsonga were competitive at all Grand Slams on all surfaces. I'm yet to see a QF from Roddick at RG.

All of this leads me to think that Roddick would just be another very good 2nd tier player like Tsonga, Berdych or Dimitrov had he been born about a decade later. He would be consistently blocked by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic on grass, and he would obviously struggle even more on hard courts and clay. Do you agree with me?
Click to expand...
A fair question. "Peak" 2003 Roddick and Mythical 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick would be in trouble. 2009 Roddick with good fitness, movement, speed, groundstrokes and shot selection would have himself a fighting chance to make a few USO and Wimbledon semis and perhaps a final.
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Andy Roddick is former number 1. Even if it's in weaker era. Let's not compare him to freaking Dimitrov.

Berdych tsonga are rated very high now. When they were playing big 4 people kept on calling them bad players as they couldn't beat the big 3. Retroactively now they are becoming better here.
 
TsitsiBH

TsitsiBH

Rookie
Not sure why you bring up Dimitrov who never peaked at the same time as an all-time great (Roddick peaked at the same time as Federer and I would suppose Tsonga/Berdych peaked at the same time as Nadal/Djokovic/Murray)

Roddick Tsonga and Berdych are all miles clear of Grigor IMO
 
TsitsiBH

TsitsiBH

Rookie
nolefam_2024 said:
Andy Roddick is former number 1. Even if it's in weaker era. Let's not compare him to freaking Dimitrov.

Berdych tsonga are rated very high now. When they were playing big 4 people kept on calling them bad players as they couldn't beat the big 3. Retroactively now they are becoming better here
Click to expand...
It makes sense to retroactively rate them higher because the following gens also can't beat Novak and Rafa... And at least Tsonga/Berdych have the excuse of facing them in their best years + also having the misfortune of playing against Federer and Murray too

Medvedev or Zverev would collapse at the thought of having to beat Federer in QF, Djokovic in SF and Nadal in F to win a single Slam (Tsonga's Wimbledon 2011 path). They wouldn't even make the semifinals.
 
F

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
03-09 Roddick in 13-19:

13: good chance at W, slim chance of USO
14: good chance at W
15: 0 slams
16: good chance at USO
17: good chance at USO
18: 0 slams
19: good chance at W

I voted better than those players. Think he wins 2 slams, 1 W and 1 USO.
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
TsitsiBH said:
It makes sense to retroactively rate them higher because the following gens also can't beat Novak and Rafa... And at least Tsonga/Berdych have the excuse of facing them in their best years + also having the misfortune of playing against Federer and Murray too

Medvedev or Zverev would collapse at the thought of having to beat Federer in QF, Djokovic in SF and Nadal in F to win a single Slam (Tsonga's Wimbledon 2011 path). They wouldn't even make the finals.
Click to expand...
Federer played meddy only 3 times before the latter rose to dominance. Whatever you are saying is just imagination.

Murray would not like facing meddy. He is just as dogged as Murray and would be a major thorn in Murray's side especially on hc and clay.
 
TsitsiBH

TsitsiBH

Rookie
nolefam_2024 said:
Federer played meddy only 3 times before the latter rose to dominance. Whatever you are saying is just imagination.

Murray would not like facing meddy. He is just as dogged as Murray and would be a major thorn in Murray's side especially on hc and clay.
Click to expand...
Federer is the most difficult match up there is for Medvedev.

Murray is better than Medvedev at everything. He would destroy him.
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
ND 13 change your username. There is an option. You can give reason as trolling Djokovic or something. It's fine. We don't judge.
 
F

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
nolefam_2024 said:
Yes and you saw these matches when ?
Click to expand...
Have you seen Medvedev’s return position? Federer would absolute destroy him on any HC and Medvedev has 0 chance on clay or grass vs anyone resembling an elite baseliner, especially not the guy with arguably the best FH of all time.

Federer is such a bad match up for him, jesus it would get pretty ugly. His best hope is to serve ridiculously high % 1st serve, like 80%+ and hope to nick a tiebreaker or hope Fed has a terrible day at the office. Maybe he could nick a win over 08 Monererer.
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sport said:
Big 3 were not at their peak in 2003 (Djokovic wasn't even playing on the ATP). Roddick is 3-21 against Federer, including a mortifying 0-8 at Slams.

Obviously, most people would rank Roddick's career ahead of players like Berdych, Tsonga or (a bit later) Dimitrov who couldn't win Grand Slams because of peaking in the same era as the Big 3.

Roddick won his one and only US Open facing the clay specialist Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final. As soon as Federer emerged, he had no chance.

Roddick became world #1 In a transition year with Federer being non-peak (outside grass) and Agassi being too old to compete for the #1 at that stage. As soon as Federer peaked across all surfaces in 2004, Roddick had no chance to obtain the #1 spot. Roddick became #1 in the pre-Big 3 era, with easier competition.

Another issue is that Berdych and Tsonga were competitive at all Grand Slams on all surfaces. I'm yet to see a QF from Roddick at RG.

All of this leads me to think that Roddick would just be another very good 2nd tier player like Tsonga, Berdych or Dimitrov had he been born about a decade later. He would be consistently blocked by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic on grass, and he would obviously struggle even more on hard courts and clay. Do you agree with me?
Click to expand...

lmao @dimi peaking in big 3 era. big 3 era was 2007-12 (with 10 being relatively weak).

oh and Roddick >>>>>>>> all of these
he also owns djokovic 5-3 when both top 10. In your scenario, with federer well past his prime, he'd win 3 slams like wawa.
roddick also has a 3-5 h2h vs nadal off clay (since roddick isn't winning on clay, h2h on clay is not relevant). he'd thrash your boy nadal on multiple occasions as well. See dubai 08 in nadal's best year for example.
just because peak federer was clearly better than peak djokovic/nadal and a tougher matchup for roddick, doesn't mean roddick wouldn't get good share of wins vs nadal and djokovic.

ferrero beat hewiitt and agassi to get to USO 03 final. also made YEC 02 final, AO 04 semi. won HC masters. roddick also faced nalbandian, ljubicic, henman in winning USO 03. you've been told this multiple times befoere, yet shamelessly peddle the same BS. Develop some integrity.
 
Last edited:
BauerAlmeida

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Roddick is a much better player than Dimitrov. His serve & forehand at his best were bigger weapons than anything Dimitrov had.

Of course, he wouldn't sniff world #1 in the Big 3 era and would likely go slamless as in this case he wouldn't be able to win a slam pre-Federer dominance as he did and he would not only have to deal with Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic too. But he still would be a force and consistent top 5 and would have a much bigger chance than Dimitrov winning one.

Yes, Dimitrov played in the Big 3 era, but they weren't always the reason he didn't win a slam, most of the times other players were stopping him. AO 2017 is a case where he could have won with no Big 3, but he'd still have to beat Wawrinka or Nishikori, etc.
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
BauerAlmeida said:
Roddick is a much better player than Dimitrov. His serve & forehand at his best were bigger weapons than anything Dimitrov had.

Of course, he wouldn't sniff world #1 in the Big 3 era and would likely go slamless as in this case he wouldn't be able to win a slam pre-Federer dominance as he did and he would not only have to deal with Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic too. But he still would be a force and consistent top 5 and would have a much bigger chance than Dimitrov winning one.

Yes, Dimitrov played in the Big 3 era, but they weren't always the reason he didn't win a slam, most of the times other players were stopping him. AO 2017 is a case where he could have won with no Big 3, but he'd still have to beat Wawrinka or Nishikori, etc.
Click to expand...
Murray
Then Medvedev
Then Roddick

Then osers from big 3 era. Too many excuses made for the failures of players saying big 3 big 3. Every gen has big names.
 
Holmes

Holmes

Hall of Fame
ND-13 said:
Roddick is as good a player on grass as Murray
Click to expand...
Murray destroyed "peak" Roddick on Center court at the age of 18 in 2006 (6, 4, 4). It took a rejuvenated and improved Roddick 4 sets, the last 2 tiebreakers to squeak by a 21 year old Murray in 2009. And Murray holds a 2-1 edge on grass not to mention a silly 2 Wimbledon titles to Roddick’s epic zero. How is Roddick better on grass again?
 
Holmes

Holmes

Hall of Fame
nolefam_2024 said:
Murray has won 5 queens
OG
2 Wimbledons

Yes Roddick may be unfortunate but Murray faced big 3 as well. Don't overrate Andy Roddick on grass now.
Click to expand...
Murray is 2-1 on grass v Roddick and beat him as an 18 year old at Wimbledon in straight sets.
 
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
I imagine he might do a bit better with a more beatable version of Federer at Wim and USO. Maybe if everything goes his way a slam or 2 more isn't completely out of reach.
 
N

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Holmes said:
Murray destroyed "peak" Roddick on Center court at the age of 18 in 2006 (6, 4, 4). It took a rejuvenated and improved Roddick 4 sets, the last 2 tiebreakers to squeak by a 21 year old Murray in 2009. And Murray holds a 2-1 edge on grass not to mention a silly 2 Wimbledon titles to Roddick’s epic zero. How is Roddick better on grass again?
Click to expand...

With a winning h2h against Djokovic and if he had the choice of meeting Raonic and Verdasco for SF/Final, why not ??

Anyways , seems like you have a penchant for pushers . I won’t comment further on your taste.
 
Holmes

Holmes

Hall of Fame
ND-13 said:
With a winning h2h against Djokovic and if he had the choice of meeting Raonic and Verdasco for SF/Final, why not ??

Anyways , seems like you have a penchant for pushers . I won’t comment further on your taste.
Click to expand...
Interesting...stating facts means I have a penchant for pushers. I won't comment on your take.
 
nolefam_2024

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Holmes said:
Interesting...stating facts means I have a penchant for pushers. I won't comment on your take.
Click to expand...
Fedfans lack analytical skills mostly. Anyone not agressive enough is a pusher for them.

Safin Roddick are gods for them. Very bad tennis analysis.
 
M

mental midget

Hall of Fame
BauerAlmeida said:
Roddick is a much better player than Dimitrov. His serve & forehand at his best were bigger weapons than anything Dimitrov had.

Of course, he wouldn't sniff world #1 in the Big 3 era and would likely go slamless as in this case he wouldn't be able to win a slam pre-Federer dominance as he did and he would not only have to deal with Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic too. But he still would be a force and consistent top 5 and would have a much bigger chance than Dimitrov winning one.

Yes, Dimitrov played in the Big 3 era, but they weren't always the reason he didn't win a slam, most of the times other players were stopping him. AO 2017 is a case where he could have won with no Big 3, but he'd still have to beat Wawrinka or Nishikori, etc.
Click to expand...
yeah gotta give it to roddick. dimitrov is...better, in many ways, but roddick's serve counts for a lot and for a time his ground game was pretty dangerous as well, at least off the forehand side.
 
mavsman149

mavsman149

Hall of Fame
He'd still win at least one slam. Similar to what Wawrinka was in the 2010's.

Funny enough, he might have more slams, but probably never number 1, unless he got it when Medvedev did.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
BauerAlmeida said:
Roddick is a much better player than Dimitrov. His serve & forehand at his best were bigger weapons than anything Dimitrov had.

Of course, he wouldn't sniff world #1 in the Big 3 era and would likely go slamless as in this case he wouldn't be able to win a slam pre-Federer dominance as he did and he would not only have to deal with Federer, but Nadal and Djokovic too. But he still would be a force and consistent top 5 and would have a much bigger chance than Dimitrov winning one.

Yes, Dimitrov played in the Big 3 era, but they weren't always the reason he didn't win a slam, most of the times other players were stopping him. AO 2017 is a case where he could have won with no Big 3, but he'd still have to beat Wawrinka or Nishikori, etc.
Click to expand...
It depends on how much of a gifting mood Djokovic is in.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The Sinner said:
I still think Roddick will win one slam, most likely Wimby though. Would do better than Tsonga or Berdy, but not as well as Wawa.
Click to expand...
It's actually better if he is born in 1991 as his best years on grass (2004 and 2009) coincide with 2013 (bad match by Djokovic) and 2018 (tired Djokovic after Nadal semi).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TsitsiBH
  • Poll
If Daniil Medvedev was born a decade earlier, would he realistically achieve more than Tsonga or Berdych in the Big Four era ?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
1K
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
TripleATeam
  • Poll
If Carlos Alcaraz was born a decade later, would he realistically achieve more than Timic or Pialta in the Big Seven era ?
Replies
0
Views
137
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
Razer
  • Poll
IF...Murray was born in 1982 & Roddick born in 1987, who would've had a more Successful Slam Career?
2 3
Replies
101
Views
2K
RS
RS
clout
If Thiem was born in 1983 instead of 1993, how would his career have changed?
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Sunny014
Sunny014
Razer
In a Bizarro world without the Big 3, Sir Andy Murray would probably have more Grand Slams than Pete Sampras
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
DSH
DSH
Top