Andy Roddick - Does he get the credit he deserves?

[metsman]

Djokovic and Federer are completely different players. Its like how Federer has always played better vs Djokovic than Nadal.

But Murray and Hewitt are quite similar players but Hewitt if anything played with a more aggressive mentality and used the net more so that might make him a better matchup against Djokovic.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Both Andys have detractors and those who overrate them. It depends on whether one supports Federer or Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

I have no problems with him being number 2. But I would put my money on Murray. He would have better results.

Maybe, maybe not. Fair enough if you put money on Murray though.

I wish Djokovic had as many detractors as Federer

Don't bury your head in the sand man, Federer has plenty of haters

 

[metsman]

Also, I'd say Roddick was very, very talented, but he ended up playing a game he wasn't very talented at.

Dubai 2008 was an amazing run and looking at that, I could never get why he stopped playing like that.

I wouldn't call him very very talented but yes his skills were perfect for the serve/forehand monster game.

But I think Roddick's movement and feel were a little underrated. He didn't have the stone hands many made him out to be and at his best he was a pretty good mover actually.

 

[Noleberic123]

But Murray and Hewitt are quite similar players but Hewitt if anything played with a more aggressive mentality and used the net more so that might make him a better matchup against Djokovic.

He did take a set off peak Nole at AO in 2012. And I was at that match

 

[metsman]

He did take a set off peak Nole at AO in 2012. And I was at that match

also gave Nole a very tough battle at the 12 Olympics.

I remember the AO match..Hewitt started playing really aggressively for that set and caught Novak off guard but couldn't keep it up.

07 Wimby too very tight match that Hewitt could maybe have won had he been a little more steady on the big points.

 

[Noleberic123]

Maybe, maybe not. Fair enough if you put money on Murray though.



Don't bury your head in the sand man, Federer has plenty of haters

Federer is must more loved than Nole. Lets be real. Remember seeing a video of Wimbledon 2011 fans picking who would win a tournament. Not one fan said Djokovic even though he had been the best player of the year and had only lost one match .

I dont know how RF does it

 

[Noleberic123]

also gave Nole a very tough battle at the 12 Olympics.

I remember the AO match..Hewitt started playing really aggressively for that set and caught Novak off guard but couldn't keep it up.

07 Wimby too very tight match that Hewitt could maybe have won had he been a little more steady on the big points.

Thats the hardest Hewitt had hit the ball in like 6 years. Very impressive. Djokovic crushed him in the first two sets and I thought it was going to be a training session

 

[NatF]

Federer is must more loved than Nole. Lets be real. Remember seeing a video of Wimbledon 2011 fans picking who would win a tournament. Not one fan said Djokovic even though he had been the best player of the year and had only lost one match .

I dont know how RF does it

Not saying Federer isn't more loved that Novak, goes without saying

He's just got his share of haters and detractors. I'm not making a comparison.

 

[Noleberic123]

Not saying Federer isn't more loved that Novak, goes without saying

He's just got his share of haters and detractors. I'm not making a comparison.

I am

 

[Mainad]

But Murray and Hewitt are quite similar players but Hewitt if anything played with a more aggressive mentality and used the net more so that might make him a better matchup against Djokovic.

A 1-6 H2H against him doesn't exactly encourage that notion!

 

[Red Rick]

I wouldn't call him very very talented but yes his skills were perfect for the serve/forehand monster game.

But I think Roddick's movement and feel were a little underrated. He didn't have the stone hands many made him out to be and at his best he was a pretty good mover actually.

I feel like much of Roddick's game came down to self belief. Made so much difference for his movement whether he had a positive attitude or not. His early clay results weren't even that bad, but he made himself believe that he sucked on clay, so he sucked.

 

[Tardigrade]

I've never said he was anything of the sort. You've obviously got a bone to pick with the Federer fanbase and good luck with that - but don't bother replying to me if you've got nothing to offer but sarcasm.

At best I think he's a 3-4 calibre champion - at best.

He would basically be like Murray, with a worse FO record and a worse record in the masters. Murray is slightly better than Hewitt. They both won their slams with plenty of questions to be asked, but at least Murray faced a guy who was well within his prime in both slams. Hewitt got Nalbandian at Wimbledon, who was playing his first grass court tournament, and an aging Sampras. Murray at least had to beat Djokovic for his two finals - although both players have asterisks next to their slams.



If people are going to be harsh on Djokovic, I'm going to be harsh on everyone else. Murray and Hewitt included. At least I feel a bit sorry for ripping into Murray. Hewitt is just too easy to hate; Boring game, crap person.

 

[Tardigrade]

Not saying Federer isn't more loved that Novak, goes without saying

He's just got his share of haters and detractors. I'm not making a comparison.

Djokovic had more fans than Federer at one point, but it was only to do with the Federer fans contracting mono, if they never had mono, they could have expressed their feelings for Federer more often. Some of Federer's fans got injured, hence they weren't able to show their support. When they were 100% and supporting well, they clearly outnumbered the Djokovic fans, as well as measuring louder on the decibel charts.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

He would basically be like Murray, with a worse FO record and a worse record in the masters. Murray is slightly better than Hewitt. They both won their slams with plenty of questions to be asked, but at least Murray faced a guy who was well within his prime in both slams. Hewitt got Nalbandian at Wimbledon, who was playing his first grass court tournament, and an aging Sampras. Murray at least had to beat Djokovic for his two finals - although both players have asterisks next to their slams.

Well Sampras beat Rafter, Agassi, Safin to reach the finals which are the players who won all the USO back to 1997!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Many fans, especially on this forum, tend to talk about Andy Roddick like he was a poor player. He is also considered a reason why many refer to Federer's era as weak, because Federer happened to beat him in several Grand Slams. But, if we think objectively about Roddick for a change, how good was he? I remember the Wimbledon final in 2004 where Roddick played fantastic against a prime Federer but still lost. And of course the final five years later when he deserved to win the title.

To share a light on his legacy I decided to create a video of his most memorable moments:

What's your fondest memory of Andy Roddick?

Excuse me, Maestro, but, the Grand Slam is winning the 4 major Championships in the same year. 5 players have won the Grand Slam on 6 occasions in the history of tennis. Federer did not beat Roddick in "several Grand Slams," he beat him in several majors.

Having said that, as I see it, Roddick was expected to be the next great American player, like Pete Sampras, and was expected to dominate the game for the foreseeable future with his monster serve and forehand, and when those expectations turned in to disappointment, his fans turned against him. But, he was #1 and did he win one major and was a finalist at Wimbledon 3 times. So, it seems that he is not as appreciated as he should be by some.

PS: He also has a winning record over Djokovic. Not too shabby.

 

[Mainad]

He would basically be like Murray, with a worse FO record and a worse record in the masters. Murray is slightly better than Hewitt. They both won their slams with plenty of questions to be asked, but at least Murray faced a guy who was well within his prime in both slams. Hewitt got Nalbandian at Wimbledon, who was playing his first grass court tournament, and an aging Sampras. Murray at least had to beat Djokovic for his two finals - although both players have asterisks next to their slams.

The only possible asterisk in winning a Slam or anything else is if you win it on a walkover and even then....I stress the word possible! [/QUOTE]

 

[metsman]

A 1-6 H2H against him doesn't exactly encourage that notion!

yeah Hewitt after multiple surgeries and way past his best...what's murray's record against Novak post surgery? And Murray is still playing prime level tennis while Hewitt was clearly past his by 06 at the latest.

 

[metsman]

Well Sampras beat Rafter, Agassi, Safin to reach the finals which are the players who won all the USO back to 1997!

i mean if you count Pete himself those guys had every USO since Stefan in 92.

 

[Mainad]

yeah Hewitt after multiple surgeries and way past his best...what's murray's record against Novak post surgery? And Murray is still playing prime level tennis while Hewitt was clearly past his by 06 at the latest.

But that's the point. It's all speculation because we can never know how prime Hewitt would have fared against prime Djokovic.

 

[Noleberic123]

But that's the point. It's all speculation because we can never know how prime Hewitt would have fared against prime Djokovic.

I dont think he would be beating Djokovic in slams. But yeah we will never know

 

[Limpinhitter]

But that's the point. It's all speculation because we can never know how prime Hewitt would have fared against prime Djokovic.

There is some speculation, but, I wouldn't say that it's all speculation for those who have seen them play at their respective peaks. In my view, peak Djokovic is better than peak Hewitt in every aspect of the game. I don't see Hewitt taking a match off of Djokovic unless Hewitt is playing his best and Djokovic is not, which does happen, but, not often.

 

[Red Rick]

http://trolltennis.com/andy-roddick-top-10-memorable-moments/

Troll Tennis is on to you mate

 

[Limpinhitter]

Federer has no detractors

I nominate this as the "Funniest Post of the Week." Anyone want to second?

 

[NatF]

There is some speculation, but, I wouldn't say that it's all speculation for those who have seen them play at their respective peaks. In my view, peak Djokovic is better than peak Hewitt in every aspect of the game. I don't see Hewitt taking a match off of Djokovic unless Hewitt is playing his best and Djokovic is not, which does happen, but, not often.

Hewitt has the better net game, slice, lob, smash. He's as good at Novak at the passing shot and in the movement department (grass and HC).

Djokovic is clearly better off the backhand, forehand, serve - he has a slightly better return as well. Those are the most important strokes in tennis so if both play their best Djokovic obviously wins. Djokovic has similar edges against Murray yet has lost several big matches to him, so Hewitt could definitely get Djokovic of 12-14 in big matches.

 

[FD3S]

As a Roddick fan, I'm going to say it's honestly about even in the grand scheme of things, IMO. (Currently, anyway; he took some monster heat back in the day, I recall.)

I've seen people make the argument that Roddick's a walking example of the 'weak era', that without his serve he wouldn't have made it out of Challengers, that they've seen 4.0's volley better than he does. Hogwash. His records and highlights speak for themselves, and aspiring to have a better career than Andy Roddick is to aspire to great things indeed.

On the other hand, I've also seen people that claim Roddick would have cleaned up the 90's, or that without Fed he would have been an absolute lock for 7+ more majors or some other ludicrous number; also hogwash. He always had weaknesses that were target-able for the top guys, and while I would happily agree that he'd probably win a few more without Roger his absence would not mean that Roddick would automatically jump into the GOAT debate.

Roddick was a excellent player who maximized the talent he got in spite of the fact he was never going to be an all-time great like Sampras or Agassi. He always had exploitable holes in his game no matter what incarnation of him you watched, but his strengths were such that if he played at his best, the racquet would be taken out of his opponent's hands more often than not.

 

[Hollywood2]

All I can say about Andy is that he's a great great player and he entertained us for a long time with his booming serve. His volleys were not good and that hurt his chances of improving more. But he was very fast on his feet and had a solid backhand too. He fought hard for every match and for that I respect him as a player. Even when he lost to Roger he accepted the defeat well and respected his opponent and not many players do that. Because of that I really respected Andy's game.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

Many fans, especially on this forum, tend to talk about Andy Roddick like he was a poor player. He is also considered a reason why many refer to Federer's era as weak, because Federer happened to beat him in several Grand Slams. But, if we think objectively about Roddick for a change, how good was he? I remember the Wimbledon final in 2004 where Roddick played fantastic against a prime Federer but still lost. And of course the final five years later when he deserved to win the title.

To share a light on his legacy I decided to create a video of his most memorable moments:

What's your fondest memory of Andy Roddick?

People have to understand Roddick was inconsistent in terms of high quality play. Roddick in that Wimbledon Final 2004 was his top form but I think part of it had to do with the adrenaline. I don't think he could have sustain that type of power tennis without suffering some injuries eventually. I also totally agree with an above poster stating it was mostly self-belief. I also think Dubai 2008 is an example of why people wonder Roddick deferred from his old bashing forehand/server player he once was.

Federer's era wasn't strong at the top 4 (yes, I'm taking a shot at players like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt). He was poor mostly due to his incredibly inconsistency from about 2006-2008.

My fonest moment of Andy Roddick is the first set of 2004 Wimbledon Final. I've never seen him play that good ever since and ever before. Even Federer looked taken aback by the power tennis and aggressivenss of Roddick. He hit some crazy returns and broke Federer a few times that set too.

2004 Roddick was my favorite version of him.

 

[NatF]

Really great match from Roddick here against a good Moya, @metsman , @Meles you should watch this one too 58 winners and 24 UE's from Arod, one of the last tournaments Roddick played where he still went for his forehand perhaps, couple of banana shots in there.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick in the 2004 and 2009 Wimb finals played better IMO than Becker in 1995 Wimb final, Nadal in the 2011 Wimb final and Djokovic in the 2013 Wimb final.

And yet those 3 are all time greats and way more accomplished than Roddick. Yet Roddick brought a higher level of play in 2 Wimb finals. How was that possible?

Looking strictly at achievements is not always the right way to go. Just because player A is more accomplished than player B, doesn't mean he will always display a higher level of play than player B.

 

[NatF]

Roddick has a nice little go at the umpire around 43 minutes A forgotten gem.

 

[Red Rick]

As for Roddick's movement, I feel like his reaction times and first step and balance are just bad. Roddick was pretty fast when he got on the way but he'd start late, and it's also the reason why he never had a great net game or return. For return I also blame the whippy groundies.

 

[NatF]

As for Roddick's movement, I feel like his reaction times and first step and balance are just bad. Roddick was pretty fast when he got on the way but he'd start late, and it's also the reason why he never had a great net game or return. For return I also blame the whippy groundies.

Roddick liked to take big cuts at the ball so he'd stand way to far back to return. When he worked with Connors and shored up his backhand is return did improve, he also returned well at Wimbledon in 2004. For a match where Roddick had an explosive first step when approahing the net;

 

[Red Rick]

Roddick liked to take big cuts at the ball so he'd stand way to far back to return. When he worked with Connors and shored up his backhand is return did improve, he also returned well at Wimbledon in 2004. For a match where Roddick had an explosive first step when approaching the net;

Yeah, very good match. The Roddick backhand wasn't that horrible when he was playing well. He could get decent pace on it and at times he could hit the DTL backhand quite decently. Problem was he needed a bit of time on the ball and it wasn't he couldn't hit it on the run. When he was playing bad it was just weak push ball cross court that always got him wrecked by good players. He always got a lot of flack for his technique on the backhand side, but I sort of understand why he hit it like that. His backhand was mostly hit with the left hand, and I think his left side wasn't very strong for that. I used to have the same thing and the only way for me to get some pace on it was to emulate Roddick's backhand a bit. Double handers are crap when there's a discrepancy in how fast you can swing with your left and right side.

 

[NatF]

Yeah, very good match. The Roddick backhand wasn't that horrible when he was playing well. He could get decent pace on it and at times he could hit the DTL backhand quite decently. Problem was he needed a bit of time on the ball and it wasn't he couldn't hit it on the run. When he was playing bad it was just weak push ball cross court that always got him wrecked by good players. He always got a lot of flack for his technique on the backhand side, but I sort of understand why he hit it like that. His backhand was mostly hit with the left hand, and I think his left side wasn't very strong for that. I used to have the same thing and the only way for me to get some pace on it was to emulate Roddick's backhand a bit. Double handers are crap when there's a discrepancy in how fast you can swing with your left and right side.

Roddick could belt the ball off the backhand when he was playing well, with Connors he was going DTL with it quite often to great effect. His backhand was rarely a weapon but I never felt like he donated a lot of free points with it, sort of like Tsonga. Arod did have fairly decent slice as well.

Yeah my backhand suffers a bit, I tend to pull across with my right hand (I'm a real amateur on that side ).

 

[Rafa Aficionado]

The biggest big match bottler ever among Davydenko, probably. Two fitting opponents for the era that is labeled the way it is.

A-Rod's personality improved quite a bit over the years though. Shame he couldn't take '09 WB.