david aames
Professional
Andy Roddick's interview for The Guardian
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,1500073,00.html
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/story/0,10069,1500073,00.html
Andy Roddick
- Thread starter david aames
- Start date
alienhamster
Hall of Fame
It was weird to call this an "interview." Roddick was only quoted a couple of times, and there's wasn't much new or intriguing or deep here.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
"People can't call me a one-slam wonder because I've been pretty consistent and finished No2 last year. It's not as if I've tumbled to 20. I can't remember a time when you've had four young guys who have all been No1 and all won slams. Then you throw in Nadal and Guillermo Coria and, wow, the top 10 is looking really deep right now."
Don't think Andy understands the definition of "one-slam wonder." Until you win a 2nd, that's what you are.
Don't think Andy understands the definition of "one-slam wonder." Until you win a 2nd, that's what you are.
RafaN RichardG
Semi-Pro
wrote the wrong thing...see below
RafaN RichardG
Semi-Pro
haha def. but i think most people see a one slam wonder as a person who basically came out of nowhere to with a slam. like albert costa at the french. i think andy shouldnt be classified as one because i could see him winning maybe one or two more slams at the us open.
davey25
Banned
I think he will win another U.S open, maybe two, in his career. He may or may not get a Wimbledon title at some point in his career, his draw will have to open up IMO; and he may or may not get an AO title at some point in his career, again I suspect his draw would have to open up a bit.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a "one-slam wonder." But it is what it is. Chang remained a top 10 player for many years after his French Open win, but never added a 2nd slam. The record book will show him to be a one slam winner/wonder/whatever you want to call it. Which is what Roddick is now.
davey25
Banned
Well everyones definition of the term is up to them I guess. To me a one-slam wonder is a somewhat fluke, a bit of an accident, and I wouldnt go as far as to consider Roddick that, although I certainly dont think he is going to win a slam every year as some in the U.S seem to think.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
this is strange davey, you're actually saying something positive about roddick while bashing fed. what's going on?? has someone assumed your user name?
alienhamster
Hall of Fame
In addition to the "fluke" part, a one-slam wonder can only be identified retrospectively--i.e., after many years of not winning another slam. This is really premature, IMO, particularly for someone who's made another slam final and many slam semi-finals everywhere except Roland Garros.
davey25
Banned
Kevin Patrick said:
Oh, dont get me wrong. Roddick still drives me crazy, I think he is greatly overrated by some of the U.S tennis insiders who overhype him to death. My point is that he is a more regular contender, and has been closer to the top of the game for a period of time; than what I typically consider a one-slam wonder by my personal definition of the word, eg-Gaudio, Johansson.
As for Federer, I guess I am coming down hard on him since I have been really dissapointed in his performance in the big matches this year.
I think Roddick does have a point though. There is a difference between him and guys like Thomas Johannson who have won a grand slam but are not consistently contending to be in the top 10. Since winning the US Open, Roddick has made to the finals at wimbledon and the semis at Australian Open. Overall, I think he's put up pretty solid results. It's going to be pretty tough to win slams with guys like Nadal and Federer hitting their stride though.
A One-Slam-Wonder would be somone who rose well above their level, won a slam, then returned to obscurity. Clearly this doesn't apply to Roddick who has contended many times already and still has most of his career in front of him. Even if he finishes with only that one win I won't consider him a 'wonder' because he will have contended so often. Costa, Gaudio, Johanson, may all be considered one-time wonders, especially Johanson, who is nearly done now. Roddick doesn't really fit in the same mold.
Phil
Hall of Fame
rlbjr said:
rlbjr, I consider yours to be the definitive definition I've seen on the OSW. No, Roddick is not a OSW. He's been in the top 10 (or 5) for the last two years, at least.
Al Costa, Andres Gomez, Gaudio, Johannson are all OSW's. Michael Stich, Richard Kraijcek, Chang, Pat Cash and Thomas Muester are NOT OSW's-those guys were competitive BEFORE and AFTER winning their respective slams. It has nothing to do with the number, "one". It has everything to do with career records.
F
Free_Martha
Guest
Boring article.
SonicSpeed
Rookie
He is a One-slam Winner (so far)...emphasis on "winner". He is not, however, a one-slam "wonder" (which would carry the connotation that it was a surprise and came out-of-the-blue....and makes you "wonder" how he did it).
Cfidave
Professional
The guy has won one grand slam title. Federer and Hewitt own him. Nadal will beat him on every surface except grass. If he meets Federer or Hewitt in the finals or semi-finals of any slam, he will lose, as he has already done. Safin & Henmen are even money to beat him, he will be lucky to stay in the top five.
Grinder
Semi-Pro
Roddick has consistently beaten Safin, regardless of the surface. Safin would win on clay, and that's about it. Henman has lost his edge against top players and got beat by Roddick in straight sets when they last played at the Tennis Masters Cup. Roddick could beat Henman on any surface, including grass. Nadal could only beat Roddick on clay, any other surface I doubt he would proide any stiff opposition.
RiosTheGenius
Hall of Fame
I think that A. Roddick is a great player but there's only one dimention to his game and unfortunately that's not enough nowadays... at least against people like Federer or Hewitt (just to mention two that have no trouble beating Arod).
now the one slam wonder topic has been very common lately and I find disgusting how some people put these players like Gaudio, Johansson or Korda down as if the slams were awarded to them for nothing. These guys won their slams because the "favorites" could not and they well deserve the title, if they couldn't win another one doesn't mean failure....c'mon now people.
I rather be Gaudio or Costa and tell my grandkids about my one slam victory than being Pat Mac or B.Gilbert working at a TV station talking about my 0 slam , my brother's accomplishments or my stupid book.
so if Roddick doesn't win another slam IT'S OK alright.
now the one slam wonder topic has been very common lately and I find disgusting how some people put these players like Gaudio, Johansson or Korda down as if the slams were awarded to them for nothing. These guys won their slams because the "favorites" could not and they well deserve the title, if they couldn't win another one doesn't mean failure....c'mon now people.
I rather be Gaudio or Costa and tell my grandkids about my one slam victory than being Pat Mac or B.Gilbert working at a TV station talking about my 0 slam , my brother's accomplishments or my stupid book.
so if Roddick doesn't win another slam IT'S OK alright.
Grinder
Semi-Pro
Why do people always downplay Costa's victory? He had been an accomplished clay courter before his Roland Garros victory and was always in the same league as people like Juan Carlos Ferrero and Alex Corretja on clay. He beat Gasquet, Corretja, Kuerten, Canas and Davydenko on the way to the final. Then he brutally dismantled Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final 6-1 6-0 4-6 6-3. I always thought he wasn't a complete surprise to win it.
Carley1986
New User
Don't you worry about Andy being a one slam wonder. He won't be, after he wins the 2005 Wimbledon *crosses fingers* 
