Better career, Guga or Roddick?

WYK

Professional
Guga and Roddick were literally awesome to watch. But Roddick had the best post match press conferences in the history of the game.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Of course it is always subjective since there is no objective formula to compare the greatness of two players. However IMHO there is no way you can put a 1 slam winner ahead of a 3 time slam winner. If there is only a difference of one slam between players you could maybe argue in case that the player with fewer slams is way ahead in most other metrics.

A two slam deficit however is the threshold for me where you cannot argue anymore especially when we are talking about such small numbers of Slams in general.

In addition, it isn’t that Roddick leads Guga in other fields. Both have 5 masters, Guga has the YEC which Roddick has not and also comfortable lead in weeks at No.1. Roddick has some more final appearances at slams but this is completely irrelevant since no number of lost finals will ever outweigh only one slam.
 

J011yroger

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick had more titles, more match wins got to semis and finals in the slams he didn't win (except the French), was a fixture in the top 10 forever.

Guga never got to a semi outside of the French.

Surprised the voting is so lopsided.

J
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Roddick.
Kuerten was almost all clay, except few tournaments.

And Roddick beat prime Kuerten back in 2001 when he was only 18.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Roddick had more titles, more match wins got to semis and finals in the slams he didn't win (except the French), was a fixture in the top 10 forever.

Guga never got to a semi outside of the French.

Surprised the voting is so lopsided.

J
Kuerten had injury troubles starting from around 2002. Probably could have won another major at the FO otherwise.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Roddick had more titles, more match wins got to semis and finals in the slams he didn't win (except the French), was a fixture in the top 10 forever.

Guga never got to a semi outside of the French.

Surprised the voting is so lopsided.

J
Guga has three slams to one which alone should set the deal. Moreover he has the YEC and 43 weeks at No.1 to 13 weeks for Roddick. Being in the top ten for god knows how long is pretty meaningless if you can’t rise to the absolute top. Number of tournaments won is also a stat I wouldn’t put to much emphasis to. Guga was plagued with injuries therefore he didn’t have Roddicks longevity but nevertheless he leads him in the most important stats. In general i sometimes get the impression that roddick is ridiculously overrated here.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Guga has three slams to one which alone should set the deal. Moreover he has the YEC and 43 weeks at No.1 to 13 weeks for Roddick. Being in the top ten for god knows how long is pretty meaningless if you can’t rise to the absolute top. Number of tournaments won is also a stat I wouldn’t put to much emphasis to. Guga was plagued with injuries therefore he didn’t have Roddicks longevity but nevertheless he leads him in the most important stats. In general i sometimes get the impression that roddick is ridiculously overrated here.
Yup. Not much of a contest.
 

BGod

Legend
Roddick without question because of his consistency and spread of success.

Kuerten outside the French Open really has nothing much over Roddick. Both have a single YE #1.

But Roddick made 3 Wimbledon Finals including an absolute epic. And him always losing to Roger puts him in better memory than Kuerten who outside of historian circles like we have here is already a footnote. Nadal demolishing Roland Garros has made it even worse for guys like Kuerten and Wilander in their legacies on clay.

Yes you could argue 3 Slams to 1 but that's really narrow logic.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Roddick without question because of his consistency and spread of success.

Kuerten outside the French Open really has nothing much over Roddick. Both have a single YE #1.

But Roddick made 3 Wimbledon Finals including an absolute epic. And him always losing to Roger puts him in better memory than Kuerten who outside of historian circles like we have here is already a footnote. Nadal demolishing Roland Garros has made it even worse for guys like Kuerten and Wilander in their legacies on clay.

Yes you could argue 3 Slams to 1 but that's really narrow logic.
Kuerten has two more slams, significant more weeks at No.1 and the YEC. Those are already three stats where he is leading. I find it very difficult to put Roddick (or anyone for that matter) ahead because of runner-ups or semifinals which in the end are losses.
 
If you look at total atp points prize money of course Roddick wins especially since gugas career was a bit derailed by injuries but then again guga was really the dominant guy on one surface which Roddick never was. Of course Roddick did have bad luck facing Federer but such is life.
 

BGod

Legend
Kuerten has two more slams, significant more weeks at No.1 and the YEC. Those are already three stats where he is leading. I find it very difficult to put Roddick (or anyone for that matter) ahead because of runner-ups or semifinals which in the end are losses.
Roddick is also an American vs. a Brazilian.

Look I'm simply a realist. Roddick has proven to have greater staying power. The state of the once proud USTA has only boosted his image. Nobody talks about Kuerten in casual circles because the majority of his greatness was on clay which is now owned by Rafael Nadal with Borg getting a mention sometimes but moreso because of his Wimbledons.

That's the reality.
 
This is super duper easy. 3 slams vs 1 is already enough, but on top of that both have a YE#1, and I think Kuerten even has more weeks at #1 (both about the same though, small number for both), and Kuerten the clay courter even has a YEC title (beating prime Agassi and prime Sampras back to back) the biggest non slam title where Roddick did not even make a final. It is a slam dunk for Kuerten.

And yes Roddick is probably better on every surface but clay, although I guess indoors is debateable as Roddick has done nothing too noteworthy there. It really means nothing though. It is like those who will insist Nadal isn't over Federer since Nadal is only better on clay, it does not matter in the end if Nadal keeps going on his current pace. Kuerten's clay career is probably worth more than Roddick's whole career. And I am one of those who defends Roddick to people who undervalue him in excess at times. Kuerten is clearly better on clay than Roddick is on any surface, and Roddick is probably worse on clay than Kuerten is on any surface, even on grass probably I think Kuerten made a couple Wimbledon quarters with easy draws which is more than Roddick ever did at RG for instance.

Yes you could say what if Roddick did not have Federer. Thems the breaks though. Someone like Wawrinka got lucky in that sense, someone like Roddick did not. You could also say what if Kuerten did not have his hip problems, he could have easily gone on to a total of 5 or 6 RG titles, not just 3, which is more than the # of slams Roddick would have even without Federer (which would leave a pretty dire field for awhile in all honesty).
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Roddick is also an American vs. a Brazilian.

Look I'm simply a realist. Roddick has proven to have greater staying power. The state of the once proud USTA has only boosted his image. Nobody talks about Kuerten in casual circles because the majority of his greatness was on clay which is now owned by Rafael Nadal with Borg getting a mention sometimes but moreso because of his Wimbledons.

That's the reality.
It doesn’t matter whether Roddick is talked more, popularity does not equal greatness. There are also way more people talking Kournikova in casual circles than way more successful players like Davenport or Mauresmo. In terms of actual success I find it rather difficult to argue against a two slam difference even more so as we are talking relatively small numbers in general (3 vs 1 is a bigger difference than 17 vs 15 or something). On top, it is not that Roddick is way ahead in every other metric. Kuerten leads in weeks at No.1 and also in WTF. Regarding clay slams, it is not that Roddick has a great surface distribution he also only won slams on one surface (had he won W2009 it might have been a different case).
 

Jhreamer

New User
Many tennis fans here:
“Kuerten’s career was clearly better because raw Slam count outshines absolutely everything else.”

Also many tennis fans here:
“[Preferred Big 3 guy] is the best, because xyz Slams won by [insert other Big 3 guy] didn’t count due to [yadda yadda].”

Fascinating.


Honestly, I wouldn’t mind hearing more thoughts on that.
 
Last edited:

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
It's interesting because they were both pioneering players.
Roddick with his abbreviated power serve.

And Guga was the first guy to maximize the spin potential of poly strings with his rotational hips and low to high to low swing path on the forehand.
 
Many tennis fans here:
“Kuerten’s career was clearly better because raw Slam count outshines absolutely everything else.”

Also many tennis fans here:
“[Preferred Big 3 guy] is the best, because xyz Slams won by [insert other Big 3 guy] didn’t count due to [yadda yadda].”

Fascinating.


Honestly, I wouldn’t mind hearing more thoughts on that.
Haha there is massive hypocriticalness here for sure, especialy anytime the Big 3 are involved. Still 3 slams vs 1 is a massive difference. I would find it hard to rank Roddick over Wawrinka (even though in my gut he is probably a better player, which is a seperate topic altogether) even due to 3 slams to 1. So when you have someone who completely unlike the Wawrinka/Roddick comparision atleast equals you in every relevent #1 ranking stat (Kuerten vs Roddick), has a YEC or Olympic win when you don't, and when both have 5 Masters, it becomes a 200% no brainer which goes ahead.

As for who is more famous Roddick might be more known in the U.S, maybe England due to his Wimbledon performances, and that is probably it. Even in Canada my tennis friends know more about Kuerten than Roddick. If you went to South America or most of Europe or even Asia, Kuerten would be more known by a lot I am pretty sure.
 

Xemi666

Professional
Guga has 3 slams, more time as #1, same number of Masters but Guga also won WTF beating Sampras and Agassi back to back. Roddick only leads in minor tournaments won. I don't think it's particularly close.
 

Jhreamer

New User
Haha there is massive hypocriticalness here for sure, especialy anytime the Big 3 are involved. Still 3 slams vs 1 is a massive difference. I would find it hard to rank Roddick over Wawrinka (even though in my gut he is probably a better player, which is a seperate topic altogether) even due to 3 slams to 1. So when you have someone who completely unlike the Wawrinka/Roddick comparision atleast equals you in every relevent #1 ranking stat (Kuerten vs Roddick), has a YEC or Olympic win when you don't, and when both have 5 Masters, it becomes a 200% no brainer which goes ahead.

As for who is more famous Roddick might be more known in the U.S, maybe England due to his Wimbledon performances, and that is probably it. Even in Canada my tennis friends know more about Kuerten than Roddick. If you went to South America or most of Europe or even Asia, Kuerten would be more known by a lot I am pretty sure.
Seems sound to me. And I’d be interested in hearing the Roddick-Wawrinka discussion sometime!

I never really put much thought into weighing sports careers against each other, so my sentiments regarding players usually tend to remain somewhat detached from that. Which is why, though I shouldn’t be surprised when this comparative exercise leans so massively toward Guga, I’m surprised anyway. I’m also, admittedly, extremely partial to Roddick and find his career incredibly fascinating. I see no fault in favoring Guga, I just saw this thread and felt other factors should have weight — and you posited some well.

I wish Guga would’ve had a better shot without his injuries. In my yet-brief examination of that transitional era, it seems like his time at the top was sliced brutally in half.

One of the things that endears me to Roddick’s career (aside from its general tragic “what might’ve been” despite all his achievements, and possibly some conditioning from the US media) is his consistency in the top ten. It seems less common among the non-Big 3 nowadays. Thiem seems pretty rock solid in that regard.
 
Last edited:

tonylg

Professional
Roddick

I think Guga seemed like a really nice guy and was obviously a great player, but his slam count was due to him being Johnny on the spot with poly.

Roddick was the opposite of Johnny on the spot. For him it was a case of being in the wrong place when a certain guy came along.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
Seems sound to me. And I’d be interested in hearing the Roddick-Wawrinka discussion sometime!

I never really put much thought into weighing sports careers against each other, so my sentiments regarding players usually tend to remain somewhat detached from that. Which is why, though I shouldn’t be surprised when this comparative exercise leans so massively toward Guga, I’m surprised anyway. I’m also, admittedly, extremely partial to Roddick and find his career incredibly fascinating. I see no fault in favoring Guga, I just saw this thread and felt other factors should have weight — and you posited some well.

I wish Guga would’ve had a better shot without his injuries. In my yet-brief examination of that transitional era, it seems like his time at the top was sliced brutally in half.

One of the things that endears me to Roddick’s career (aside from its general tragic “what might’ve been” despite all his achievements, and possibly some conditioning from the US media) is his consistency in the top ten. It seems less common among the non-Big 3 nowadays. Thiem seems pretty rock solid in that regard.
Great points all around! And I agree Thiem could wind up very Roddick like in terms of consistency. I hope he atleast has a Roddick like career in terms of big wins (5 Masters, a slam, maybe even a YE#1, not sure about the YE#1 mind you). With how weak the field is he has no excuse not to, especialy on clay where his only competition is a 33 year old Nadal, he has absolutely no excuse to not break through there soon. He certainly does not have the huge obstacle Roddick had with a peak Federer and a pretty strong overall field from 2003-2005 and 2009 which were Roddick's 4 true peak years IMO (his prime-ish years besides those of 2007, 2008, 2010, were also quite strong, while the weakish year of 2006 was his big slump year until the very end unfortunately). I am a big Thiem fan btw.

As for Wawrinka vs Roddick well I think if Stan traded places with Roddick he probably would be slamless or might sneak out 1 slam when he avoided Federer (almost never possible) or just before or just after Federer's primeish years. He can't even beat an old Federer off of clay, so how on earth does he win every non clay slam when Federer was never losing at those except to Safin at the 2005 Australian Open, Nadal a couple times in 2008/2009, and Djokovic at the 08 Australian, Del Potro at the 09 U.S Open from 2003-2010 Australia, and the rest of 2010 was owned by a peak Nadal, 2011 by a peak of peak Djokovics, so I see no real opening for a non clay slam for Stan. And at the French he isn't beating Nadal obviously, and he probably isn't winning the 2009 French with a top form Federer, Del Potro, and Soderling, even with Nadal and Djokovic both losing.

If Roddick trades places with slam? Hard to say, the constantly slowing courts wouldn't help Roddick but he would have a pretty good shot to match Stan's 3 slams, and would probably be more consistent and successful otherwise. I guess that is what I mean by my gut being Roddick probably actually being better, even if it didn't end up that way. Although even in results it is a way closer comparision than Kuerten and Roddick since Stan never came close to being ranked #1 even briefly, has a mere 1 Masters, not as consistent or with as much longevity, many fewer titles I believe although i don't know the totals there by heart.
 

BGod

Legend
A lot of talk about 3>1 Slams but these are at the end of the day 2 week, 7 match tournaments.

And Roddick made 10 SF or better at Slams, Kuerten only the 3 he ended up winning. That is a much bigger gap than 2 Slams.

Kuerten was also only YE Top 10 (Top 13 technically) in THREE SEASONS. Roddick was Top 10 in NINE SEASONS IN A ROW which were inbetween his YE #14 finishes. So Kuerten may have the better peak but longevity-wise it's a no brainer more than 2 different outcomes at Slams.

It's not as if Federer maybe cost Roddick a couple Slams. He outright cost him 6 and the mental damage can only be amplified with Roddick's non-Fed results like losing up 2-0 to Gasquet at 2007 Wimbledon knowing Federer would be next and likely demolish him yet again.

Kuerten is clearly better on clay than Roddick is on any surface, and Roddick is probably worse on clay than Kuerten is on any surface, even on grass probably I think Kuerten made a couple Wimbledon quarters with easy draws which is more than Roddick ever did at RG for instance.

It doesn’t matter whether Roddick is talked more, popularity does not equal greatness. There are also way more people talking Kournikova in casual circles than way more successful players like Davenport or Mauresmo. In terms of actual success I find it rather difficult to argue against a two slam difference even more so as we are talking relatively small numbers in general (3 vs 1 is a bigger difference than 17 vs 15 or something). On top, it is not that Roddick is way ahead in every other metric. Kuerten leads in weeks at No.1 and also in WTF. Regarding clay slams, it is not that Roddick has a great surface distribution he also only won slams on one surface (had he won W2009 it might have been a different case).
Yeah but comparing Roddick to Kournikova is not apt and beyond my point. Roddick was more

As for who is more famous Roddick might be more known in the U.S, maybe England due to his Wimbledon performances, and that is probably it. Even in Canada my tennis friends know more about Kuerten than Roddick. If you went to South America or most of Europe or even Asia, Kuerten would be more known by a lot I am pretty sure.
Definitely an oddity and I've travel-led across the country to secondary tournaments, mind you years ago where Kuerten was more recent. I have not stepped foot in South America so I already give that one up but Europe? I mean, not Eastern Europe I can tell you that for sure although Federer/Djokovic/Nadal dominate that region anyway, again Roddick gets a lot of recognition as Roger's pigeon. All one has to ask is Federer's prime year opponents. It's Roddick first about 90% of the time.

As for Wawrinka vs Roddick well I think if Stan traded places with Roddick he probably would be slamless or might sneak out 1 slam when he avoided Federer (almost never possible) or just before or just after Federer's primeish years. He can't even beat an old Federer off of clay, so how on earth does he win every non clay slam when Federer was never losing at those except to Safin at the 2005 Australian Open, Nadal a couple times in 2008/2009, and Djokovic at the 08 Australian, Del Potro at the 09 U.S Open from 2003-2010 Australia, and the rest of 2010 was owned by a peak Nadal, 2011 by a peak of peak Djokovics, so I see no real opening for a non clay slam for Stan. And at the French he isn't beating Nadal obviously, and he probably isn't winning the 2009 French with a top form Federer, Del Potro, and Soderling, even with Nadal and Djokovic both losing.

If Roddick trades places with stam? Hard to say, the constantly slowing courts wouldn't help Roddick but he would have a pretty good shot to match Stan's 3 slams, and would probably be more consistent and successful otherwise. I guess that is what I mean by my gut being Roddick probably actually being better, even if it didn't end up that way. Although even in results it is a way closer comparision than Kuerten and Roddick since Stan never came close to being ranked #1 even briefly, has a mere 1 Masters, not as consistent or with as much longevity, many fewer titles I believe although i don't know the totals there by heart.
Roddick circa 2003-2009 placed in 2014-2020 is a very intriguing scenario. He probably wins either 2015 or 2016 Wimbledon if not both. Then you have the AO with 2018 being the prime target. Stan from 2003-2009 wins no USO, WMB or AOs except for maybe 2003 AO against Agassi (but I wouldn't take that bet) and he would be a decent shot at the two French Opens.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Yeah but comparing Roddick to Kournikova is not apt and beyond my point. Roddick was more
It doesn’t matter the point stands. You said Roddick was greater than Kuerten because he was talked more I.e. being more popular. Same holds true for Kournikova. If you don’t want to compare ATP to WTA take Agassi if you want. He is/was at least as much talked about as Sampras maybe even more - that does not make him greater tennis player though.
And Roddick made 10 SF or better at Slams, Kuerten only the 3 he ended up winning. That is a much bigger gap than 2 Slams.

Kuerten was also only YE Top 10 (Top 13 technically) in THREE SEASONS. Roddick was Top 10 in NINE SEASONS IN A ROW which were inbetween his YE #14 finishes. So Kuerten may have the better peak but longevity-wise it's a no brainer more than 2 different outcomes at Slams.
All these things are achievements where Roddick lost in the end or wasn’t No.1. I don’t say that a slam semi is not a big achievement, but no number of slam semis, finals etc. can ever outweigh a slam title. There is a reason why at the Olympic one gold counts more than any number of silvers. Semis, finals etc. can only serve as a tie breaker if players are equal in slams.
Federer/Djokovic/Nadal dominate that region anyway, again Roddick gets a lot of recognition as Roger's pigeon.
And being recognized as a pigeon makes him great???? Are you serious ?
All one has to ask is Federer's prime year opponents. It's Roddick first about 90% of the time.
Lol never ever. If you ask casual tennis fans about Federer’s opponents I guarantee you that most will say Nadal by a huge margin. Maybe some mention of Djokovic, but no way Roddick. Maybe some TTW nerds but that’s it.
 
Which 6 slams did Federer cost Roddick? I certainly can't think of 6 even if I stretch myself. Wimbledon 2004 probably, Wimbledon 2003 maybe, Wimbledon 2009 for sure, U.S Open 2006 maybe, and that is it. That is 4 max.

Wimbledon 2005 Hewitt was beating him. He was in better form that tournament for sure.

No others even come to mind. I guess some might try 2007 U.S open but I don't see it. He has having a pretty subpar year, even if he played one very good match at that Open which he still lost in straight sets to Federer. Djokovic had just beaten Djokovic pretty easily IIRC in Canada, and was clearly more confident and stronger at that point. He had already zooped past Roddick in the rankings after starting the year outside the top 20 and the year was not even out yet. Plus others in the draw who could have beaten him at that point.
 
A lot of talk about 3>1 Slams but these are at the end of the day 2 week, 7 match tournaments.

And Roddick made 10 SF or better at Slams, Kuerten only the 3 he ended up winning. That is a much bigger gap than 2 Slams.
7 slam semis being worth 2 slams, let alone the difference between a 3 slam winner vs a mere 1 slam winner, which is different than the difference between say 20 and 18, is literally one of the strangest comments I have heard EVER. If you polled 100 players if they would give up 2 slam wins for 7 more slam semi finals, how many of the 100 do you think would say yes? Would even a single one?

Kuerten was also only YE Top 10 (Top 13 technically) in THREE SEASONS. Roddick was Top 10 in NINE SEASONS IN A ROW which were inbetween his YE #14 finishes. So Kuerten may have the better peak but longevity-wise it's a no brainer more than 2 different outcomes at Slams.
This is actually a far more valid point since they both do have 1 YE#1. I could see this closing the gap some.

Roddick circa 2003-2009 placed in 2014-2020 is a very intriguing scenario. He probably wins either 2015 or 2016 Wimbledon if not both. Then you have the AO with 2018 being the prime target. Stan from 2003-2009 wins no USO, WMB or AOs except for maybe 2003 AO against Agassi (but I wouldn't take that bet) and he would be a decent shot at the two French Opens.
Stan of 2003 and 2004 winning RG? I doubt it since he did not actually perform well at the 2013 and 2014 Roland Garros tournaments. If he hit his 2015, 2017, or even 2016 RG form either of those years yeah totally, but unfortunately for him in this hypothetical this did not occur. And any future years he has Nadal who he clearly can't beat there, except 2009 where you have a really strong Federer, really strong Del Potro, and really strong Soderling.

I guess it is possible the 2007 Australian Open Roddick might have a shot at the 2018 Australian Open which was a pretty weak event climaxed by a meh quality final between Federer-Cilic where a not great Old-rer was finally gifted the win by Cilic's errors, especialy in the 5th set, but I would not bet on it. Roddick was mutiliated by Federer in the 2007 Australian Open semis, and had absolutely no what I would call good wins to reach that round, so I am not sure he manages to beat even a much older and weaker Federer, nor Cilic for that matter. Really the only impressive thing I ever saw from Roddick at the Australian Open was his amazing match with El Aynaoui in 2003. And I guess a pretty good semi final with Hewitt in 2005 which he still lost in 4 sets with Hewitt playing a bunch of 5 setters and far less fresh for that encounter. That is it.

Otherwise I agree with you. Although I would be pretty amazed if Roddick could beat 2015 Djokovic at Wimbledon, which was Djokovic's top ever form there. He would need to be in his 2009 form to even stand a shot, and even then I wouldn't bet on him winning.
 
Top