2003 USO Title Questions

[hoodjem]

In our present reality, this title is Andy Roddick’s only slam.

Okay. I was wondering where was Fed at the 2003 USO? Why didn’t he win it. He owned Roddick almost all of the time (18-3 H2H). He had already won Wimbledon 2003. He was at the beginning of his ascent.

(Confession: I did not get to watch much tennis back then, being a full-time dad and bread-winner.)

So I looked it up, and Fed was beaten in the 4th round by Nalbandian in a four set match. Nalbandian loses to Roddick in the semis in a five-setter. Fed was seeded second behind Agassi. Roddick was seeded fourth, and Nalbandian 13th.

I also looked up the Fed-Roddick H2H and noticed that one of Roddick’s three wins (versus 18 losses) over Fed was in August 2003 at the Canadian Open semis in a tie-breaker in the third set. But Fed beat Roddick four times previously, and easily beat him in the semis of the Tour Finals in Houston in November 2003. (Fed would beat Roddick another 10 times in a row before Roddick wins again in 2008.)

So here are my questions, (which are really all the same question):
Would Roddick have won the USO in 2003 if Fed had not been taken out by Nalbandian?
Was Roddick not to be denied that year?
Was Fed in a brief slump?
Was Nalbandian just a bad matchup for Fed at this time?
Was Roddick in the zone?
Was Roddick lucky to have not met Fed in the semis?
Is Roddick lucky to have this one slam?

 

[NatF]

In our present reality, this title is Andy Roddick’s only slam.

Okay. I was wondering where was Fed at the 2003 USO? Why didn’t he win it. He owned Roddick almost all of the time (18-3 H2H). He had already won Wimbledon 2003. He was at the beginning of his ascent.

(Confession: I did not get to watch much tennis back then, being a full-time dad and bread-winner.)

So I looked it up, and Fed was beaten in the 4th round by Nalbandian in a four set match. Nalbandian loses to Roddick in the semis in a five-setter.

I also looked up the Fed-Roddick H2H and noticed that one of Roddick’s three wins (versus 18 losses) over Fed was in 2003 at the Canadian Open semis in a tie-breaker in the third set. But Fed beat Roddick four times previously, and in Houston in 2003 just later.

So here are my questions, which are really all the same question:
Would Roddick have won the USO in 2003 if Fed had not been taken out by Nalbandian?
Was Roddick not to be denied that year?
Was Fed in a brief slump?
Was Nalbandian just a bad matchup for Fed at this time?
Was Roddick in the zone?
Was Roddick lucky to have not met Fed in the semis?
Is Roddick lucky to have this one slam?

Federer didn't record his first win over Nalbandian until the YEC in 2003, he also lost to Nalbandian in 5 sets at the AO - so yes at this time Nalbandian was a tough match up for Federer, though I'd argue a well playing Nalbandian on a HC would be a toe foe for many players. At this point Federer wasn't as consistent off the ground as he would be a year later, Nalbandian read and returned Federer's second serve really well and could dictate backhand to backhand. So yeah tough match up. Fed wasn't in a slump at the time per say, he just wasn't in TMF mode yet.

Would Roddick have beaten Federer? Impossible to say. Federer would have been a lot more confident against Arod than he was against Nalbandian and the match up clearly favours Federer. That being said Roddick was a definite hot streak having won Canada and Cincy in the lead up - he was playing the best tennis of his life. If there was a major for Roddick to beat Federer at it would be this one.

As far as Roddick being lucky I think that's a bit unfair, I wouldn't call someone who makes 5 slam finals and loses 4 of them to one of the GOAT's lucky to have one slam...

 

[hoodjem]

Federer didn't record his first win over Nalbandian until the YEC in 2003, he also lost to Nalbandian in 5 sets at the AO - so yes at this time Nalbandian was a tough match up for Federer, though I'd argue a well playing Nalbandian on a HC would be a toe foe for many players. At this point Federer wasn't as consistent off the ground as he would be a year later, Nalbandian read and returned Federer's second serve really well and could dictate backhand to backhand. So yeah tough match up. Fed wasn't in a slump at the time per say, he just wasn't in TMF mode yet.

Yes. When I looked up the Nalbandian-Fed H2H, I noticed that Nalbandian won their first five meetings, including three earlier in 2003 before that YEC in November 2003.

 

[NatF]

Yes. When I looked up the Nalbandian-Fed H2H, I noticed that Nalbandian won their first five meetings, including this one.

Their match in Australia was interesting, in the 4th set Federer started to play S&V and dominated the set - but in the fifth he abandoned the strategy and lost

 

[hoodjem]

Would Roddick have beaten Federer? Impossible to say. Federer would have been a lot more confident against Arod than he was against Nalbandian and the match up clearly favours Federer. That being said Roddick was a definite hot streak having won Canada and Cincy in the lead up - he was playing the best tennis of his life. If there was a major for Roddick to beat Federer at it would be this one.

As far as Roddick being lucky I think that's a bit unfair, I wouldn't call someone who makes 5 slam finals and loses 4 of them to one of the GOAT's lucky to have one slam...

Sounds like Roddick was hot, and the stars aligned to help him a little bit.

 

[pc1]

I think Federer was an great player at that point but I reached another level later. I think Federer still had some insecurities an that point and Nalbanian was incredible when he was on his game so he would even be tough for peak Federer. People were already calling Federer a genius and I thought it was a possibility at that point.

 

[IowaGuy]

Nalbandian was a beast when he was in shape and focused! His game matched up well against Fed's, he hit with a lot of disguise and had all kinds of weapons - drop shots, lobs, slice, etc. He could have easily won a couple of GS if the cards would have fallen slightly differently (reached SF of all majors and Wimbledon F).

If you haven't watched much Nalbandian, you're in for a youtube treat!

 

[boredone3456]

Federer didn't win the tournament because Nalbandian was better than him in the 4th round and took him out. Yes Federer won Wimbledon but Naldbandian was a total beast when he was on and had all guns firing, and he particularly seemed able to match up well against Fed. The fact that it took Federer 6 attempts to get his first win, and that even though Federer eventually lead the H2H many of the matches were still competitive, speaks volumes.

 

[hoodjem]

Federer didn't win the tournament because Nalbandian was better than him in the 4th round and took him out. Yes Federer won Wimbledon but Naldbandian was a total beast when he was on and had all guns firing, and he particularly seemed able to match up well against Fed. The fact that it took Federer 6 attempts to get his first win, and that even though Federer eventually lead the H2H many of the matches were still competitive, speaks volumes.

Alas! (The rivalry that could have been.)

 

[jaggy]

Alas! (The rivalry that could have been.)

Pie has a lot to answer for

 

[hoodjem]

Pie has a lot to answer for

Boston Cream! That devil.

 

[Heuristic]

Roddick was in the zone. He completely outplayed and outpowered Ferrero off both wings. So based on his level of play, I would say Roddick would have beaten Federer that year. He already did a few months earlier.

 

[Pheasant]

Nalbandian was always a tough match for Federer whereas Roddick could bomb-serve Nalbanian and win. I.e, I think that peak-Roddick could have had nearly as much success against peak-Nalby as peak-Fed did. However, peak Federer obviously destroyed peak-Roddick. The sport is about match-ups, which makes it fun.

But with all of that being said, Federer wasn't at his peak by the USO of 2003. By the WTF of 2003, Federer was finally dialed in and ready to hurt people badly.

I think a Roddick/Federer match in the 2003 USO semis would have been a blood bath. Would Federer have beaten Roddick? I think that match would have gone the distance. My gut is that Federer still would have won, given his 4-1 career record against Roddick going into that match. But I can definitely see a strong case for Andy winning that one too.

Heads: Federer wins
Tails: Roddick wins

 

[The Green Mile]

Roddick by far. Got to play his quarterfinal when juan carlos was still in his 2nd round. Got practice courts and the most favorable scheduling in tennis history.

I think juan carlos had to play 5 days in a row, while roddick was on schedule.

Did this actually happen? I cannot remember.

 

[Chadillac]

Did this actually happen? I cannot remember.

Hurricane messed up scheduling bad. I think juan carlos had to play 4 days in a row including the final

 

[Gizo]

Nalbandian had also recently beaten Federer in 2 tiebreaks in their 3rd round match at Cincy that year, and took a 4-0 h2h advantage into that US Open match, so that was certainly not a shock result. He had the ability to push Federer back in the baseline rallies, pepper his backhand to force him on the defensive, and of course destroy Federer's 2nd serve.

Roddick was 27-1 during that US hard court summer (his only defeat was against Henman in tjeir Washington semi). His Montreal-Cincinnati double required him to win 12 matches in 13 days (he had a Tuesday start in Montreal), which was an incredible achievement, and he didn't have any rest weeks during that Indianpolis to Cincy stretch so he played 20 matches in those 4 back to back weeks. He was on an absolute roll and was clearly the man to beat. He deserved that slam win for sure. He was 38-2 in his first 40 matches under Gilbert from Queen's to USA's Davis Cup play-off in Slovakia. It was amazing how calm and composed he was during that US Open final.

His 2 matches against Nalbandian that summer were certainly very different. He destroyed Nalbandian in the Montreal final (Nalbandian was 0-13 in sets in 'big finals' before winning the last 3 against Federer in the 2005 Masters Cup). And of course their US Open semi was far more dramatic especially that 3rd set tiebreak. You can't blame Nalbandian for not converting that match point, when Roddick saved it with a huge unreturnable serve. At 4-2 up he tamely hit a forehand into the net (a 5-2 lead could have put the tiebreak and match beyond Roddick's reach). And of course that point at 7-7 when he was distracted by people in the crowd yelling 'out' for one of his shots that clearly landed in was controversial. As the match wore on Nalbandian was visibly struggling more and more with abdominal pain (he had frequent abdominal injuries during his career), which forced him to withdraw from Argentina's Davis Cup semi in Spain.

Federer became the 'main man' and began his ruthless dominance of men's tennis from the 2003 Masters Cup onwards. In-between his Wimbledon and Masters Cup titles that year, he could still be inconsistent. He had choked away matches against Roddick in their Montreal semi (he said that his racket felt much heavier near the end of the match as the world no. 1 ranking was in sight), and against Hewitt in the Davis Cup semi-finals, 2 players that would become his favourite punching bags (if your consistent the importance of the matches that he would beat them both in).

 

[Gizo]

From a hypothetical point of view, a Roddick-Agassi match at that US Open (or that summer) could have been interesting.

Roddick has admitted that he was happy that Ferrero beat Agassi in the other semi-final (sealing the no. 1 spot in the process). Firstly Ferrero was clearly a much better match-up for him than Agassi was (Ferrero would only break him 4 times in their 5 matches). Secondly he would obviously be the huge crowd favourite against Ferrero, while Agassi clearly would have been the big crowd favourite against him (Roddick's popularity wasn't close to Agassi's).

Roddick and Agassi had 2 interesting matches in 2003. In the Houston final, Roddick had 3 break points for a set and a double break lead. Starting with a dropshot winner Agassi played 5 consecutive excellent points to come from 0-40 down to win that crucial game, and fought back to win that match. In his book he said that he was so happy about reclaiming the world no. 1 ranking after his semi-final win against Melzer, that he didn't care whether he won or lost that final, which actually helped him loosen up and win it. And in their Queen's semi-final, Roddick outplayed Agassi for long periods of the match (especially the 1st set), and saved a match point in the final set tiebreak with a un-returnable serve before sealing victory.

Not that Ferrero was ever in a position to win that US Open final, but had he won it, he would have been the undisputed player of the year for 2003.

 

[Prabhanjan]

Yet another of those USO's that Agassi should have won. I think Agassi had way more and higher chances of winning it than Fed. Till that WTF, Fed was famous for his inconsistency. So, no, it does not matter. Even hypothetically, it is cruel to take away Roddick's only slam

 

[Heuristic]

Federer revealed that when Roddick claimed the nr 1 spot by beating him in Canada, he wasn't sure he would ever get it (!). It was a completely different Roddick and Federer back then. Only their Bangkong match was loopsided.

 

[Gary Duane]

Federer didn't record his first win over Nalbandian until the YEC in 2003, he also lost to Nalbandian in 5 sets at the AO - so yes at this time Nalbandian was a tough match up for Federer, though I'd argue a well playing Nalbandian on a HC would be a toe foe for many players. At this point Federer wasn't as consistent off the ground as he would be a year later, Nalbandian read and returned Federer's second serve really well and could dictate backhand to backhand. So yeah tough match up. Fed wasn't in a slump at the time per say, he just wasn't in TMF mode yet.

Would Roddick have beaten Federer? Impossible to say. Federer would have been a lot more confident against Arod than he was against Nalbandian and the match up clearly favours Federer. That being said Roddick was a definite hot streak having won Canada and Cincy in the lead up - he was playing the best tennis of his life. If there was a major for Roddick to beat Federer at it would be this one.

As far as Roddick being lucky I think that's a bit unfair, I wouldn't call someone who makes 5 slam finals and loses 4 of them to one of the GOAT's lucky to have one slam...

In fact, Roddick's 2009 loss to Fed at Wimbledon has got to be one of the most UNlucky losses in tennis history!!!

 

[Moose Malloy]

Did this actually happen? I cannot remember.

I remember this tournament well, but double checked the dates. The whole playing the 1st round over 3 days thing really complicated things when rain hit in the 2nd week.

2nd Tuesday was a complete rainout. Wednesday was almost a complete rainout but Roddick was able to get his 4th round match competed after midnight in the only match competed that day(with several rain delays). At the same time he was playing in a light rain, his next round opponents Schuettler and Schalken refused to play on Armstrong(so conspiracy theorists can't blame usta for that)

Unfortunately it rained most of the next day(Thursday) but cleared up at night and they got all the remaining 4th round matches completed, including ferreros 5 set win over martin.

Friday was QF day, and Ferrero had a 4 setter with Hewitt. Saturday was SF day, Sunday was the final(amazed they could stay on schedule)

So Roddick played 3 days in a row to finish the event, while Ferrero played 4. Roddick would've probably also played 4 days if Malisse refused to play (it was raining while they played)

 

[hoodjem]

Thanks for the responses. Good stuff here.

 

[IowaGuy]

In fact, Roddick's 2009 loss to Fed at Wimbledon has got to be one of the most UNlucky losses in tennis history!!!

Luck had nothing to do with it, Roddick blew some good chances. For example, major choke at set point (at 6:10 below) to go up 2-0 sets!

 

[eldanger25]

Federer became the 'main man' and began his ruthless dominance of men's tennis from the 2003 Masters Cup onwards. In-between his Wimbledon and Masters Cup titles that year, he could still be inconsistent. He had choked away matches against Roddick in their Montreal semi (he said that his racket felt much heavier near the end of the match as the world no. 1 ranking was in sight), and against Hewitt in the Davis Cup semi-finals, 2 players that would become his favourite punching bags (if your consistent the importance of the matches that he would beat them both in).

Had a similar thought reading this thread: Fed had a brief mini-slump against his leading peers between his Wimbledon victory in July and lighting that candle in Houston in November 2003. Loses to Roddick in August, Nalbandian 2x in August/September, Hewitt in September, and then Ferrero in October. A strange little stretch, considering he went something like 58-6 against those four across the rest of their careers.

 

[abmk]

Luck had nothing to do with it, Roddick blew some good chances. For example, major choke at set point (at 6:10 below) to go up 2-0 sets!

that was the only one one in the match.
He wasn't broken until the final game. Held for 37 freakin' games.
Saved the first 6 BPs he faced in the match.

A guy who hasn't been broken the entire match until the final game (in a 5-setter) and loses is obviously unlucky.

 

[IowaGuy]

A guy who hasn't been broken the entire match until the final game (in a 5-setter) and loses is obviously unlucky.

I would argue if you aren't broken the entire match (until last game) but still lose, then you probably have a poor return of service

Hold serves until the tiebreakers kind of sounds like as Isner or Karlovic strategy

Is Isner or Karlovic "unlucky" every time they lose a match while only being broken one time?

 

[abmk]

I would argue if you aren't broken the entire match (until last game) but still lose, then you probably have a poor return of service

Hold serves until the tiebreakers kind of sounds like as Isner or Karlovic strategy

Is Isner or Karlovic "unlucky" every time they lose a match while only being broken one time?

Are you serious ?
Did you even watch the match ?

Roddick did break federer in the 1st and 4th sets. Federer took sets 2 and 3 in TBs.

Both were serving exceptional in dry+hot conditions (which made the surface pretty fast) and backing up their serves really well.
Returning wasn't great from either, but was hardly horrible.

 

[IowaGuy]

Both were serving exceptional in dry+hot conditions (which made the surface pretty fast) and backing up their serves really well. Returning wasn't great from either, but was hardly horrible.

I did watch the match, hence the shanked set point that I mentioned earlier (2nd set tiebreak) Roddick likely would have won had he not choked on that point (also missed a volley on the very next point, though it was a tougher shot and not a putaway like the one he shanked).

Do you think Ivanisevic was unlucky in the first two sets of Wimbledon 1994 against Sampras? His serve wasn't broken in 12 service games yet he found himself down 2 sets to 0 (and basically mentally crumbled after that). But I have never heard anyone call him "unlucky" for that...