Better Career: Roddick or Hewitt

GameSampras

GameSampras

Banned
While Roddick is still going I guess you could say "strong." Hes maintaining a top ranking though unable to win the big ones anymore. Hewitt's wheel feell off very fast due to injuries. But he did manage another slam over Roddick. In essence Hewitt accomplished more in less time than Roddick who has maintained a good ranking but hasnt accomplished a whole lot of major tournaments. And Hewitt does have the slight edge over Roddick in the h2h and he only one less Singles title.

Career Review

Hewitt


Singles Record: 493 - 168

slams: 2

Singles Titles: 26

Doubles Record: 74 - 53

Doubles Titles: 2
Prize Money: $17,731,401


Roddick
Singles Record: 482 - 152


Slams 1

Singles Titles: 27

Doubles Record: 53 - 36

Doubles Titles: 4

Prize Money: $15,559,438
 
Last edited:
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think he ever did. Hewitt did so that would distinctly give him the edge. That alone would make his career more outstanding than Roddick's. Just on statistics more than the ones given, Hewitt had some outstanding "firsts".

Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.
 
Last edited:
WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis said:
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think so, although Hewitt did so that would distinctly give Hewitt the edge. Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.
Click to expand...

Roddick ended 2003 with the #1 ranking.
 
Hewitt by a big margin.

80 weeks at number 1 (75 consecutive, top 10 all time)
2 slam singles titles
2 Masters Cups
2 Davis Cups
1 slam doubles title (US Open 2000)
Youngest ever number 1 (not as important, but still something)
Dominant over Roddick at their peaks.

All things Hewitt has over Roddick. He is only behind Federer and Nadal in terms of modern player accomplishments.
 
Hard to decide: Hewitt has more slams and more weeks at #1. Roddick has more titles overall and more master shields (4 vs 2 for Hewitt). Roddick is also having more longevity at the top. So it depends what you want to prioritize. I would say Hewitt was more precocious and more brilliant at the beginning of his career but he wasn't able to keep it up for very long, Roddick has been more consistent on the long term.
 
Roddick and Hewitt are close in age but Hewitt hasn't been in the top 10 since 2006 whereas Roddick is still #6 right now.
 
veroniquem said:
Hard to decide: Hewitt has more slams and more weeks at #1. Roddick has more titles overall and more master shields (4 vs 2 for Hewitt). Roddick is also having more longevity at the top. So it depends what you want to prioritize. I would say Hewitt was more precocious and more brilliant at the beginning of his career but he wasn't able to keep it up for very long, Roddick has been more consistent on the long term.
Click to expand...

I dont think people want take the longevity factor between these two into consideration. Its more easy just to say Hewitt hands down considering his results early on.. But it was short lived is the thing.
I think its closer than some care to see it between these two. Which is why I posed the question.
 
GameSampras said:
While Roddick is still going I guess you could say "strong." Hes maintaining a top ranking though unable to win the big ones anymore. Hewitt's wheel feell off very fast due to injuries. But he did manage another slam over Roddick. In essence Hewitt accomplished more in less time than Roddick who has maintained a good ranking but hasnt accomplished a whole lot of major tournaments. And Hewitt does have the slight edge over Roddick in the h2h and he only one less Singles title.

Career Review

Hewitt


Singles Record: 493 - 168

slams: 2

Singles Titles: 26

Doubles Record: 74 - 53

Doubles Titles: 2
Prize Money: $17,731,401


Roddick

Singles Record: 482 - 152


Slams 1

Singles Titles: 27

Doubles Record: 53 - 36

Doubles Titles: 4

Prize Money: $15,559,438
Click to expand...
How would one only "guess you could say" that Roddick is still going strong? He's made the semifinals or better of every tournament he's played this year, including a Grand Slam and a Masters Series, during which he achieved two wins over the world's number three, has only been bested by three absolute elites thus far this season, has won titles in singles and doubles, and is #2 in the ATP Race. These have been the best first three months of any season in his career. If you don't think that's clearly going strong, then your standards are ludicrous.

As for the question at the top, their careers have been very similar, and I would consider them very close at this stage overall, but I'd have to say that Hewitt's second Slam puts him ahead of Roddick. This is partly a matter of timing, since Hewitt came along a couple years before Roddick and accordingly had a longer run at the top before being eclipsed by Federer, but the record stands nevertheless. Roddick's primary advantages at this stage would be in more year-end top 10 finishes (an extremely impressive seven consecutive seasons), more overall titles, and a better career singles win/loss record, while Hewitt has the longer run at the very top, one more Grand Slam, and a winning record (6-4) against Roddick. I think it is possible for Roddick to overtake Hewitt even if he never comes up with a second Slam if he can further his advantages in other fields, but so far, given that most of their statistics are so closely matched, I think Hewitt's extra Grand Slam has to be the deciding factor.
 
Joseph L. Barrow said:
How would one only "guess you could say" that Roddick is still going strong? He's made the semifinals or better of every tournament he's played this year, including a Grand Slam and a Masters Series, during which he achieved two wins over the world's number three, has only been bested by three absolute elites thus far this season, has won titles in singles and doubles, and is #2 in the ATP Race. These have been the best first three months of any season in his career. If you don't think that's clearly going strong, then your standards are ludicrous.

As for the question at the top, their careers have been very similar, and I would consider them very close at this stage overall, but I'd have to say that Hewitt's second Slam puts him ahead of Roddick. This is partly a matter of timing, since Hewitt came along a couple years before Roddick and accordingly had a longer run at the top before being eclipsed by Federer, but the record stands nevertheless. Roddick's primary advantages at this stage would be in more year-end top 10 finishes (an extremely impressive seven consecutive seasons), more overall titles, and a better career singles win/loss record, while Hewitt has the longer run at the very top, one more Grand Slam, and a winning record (6-4) against Roddick. I think it is possible for Roddick to overtake Hewitt even if he never comes up with a second Slam if he can further his advantages in other fields, but so far, given that most of their statistics are so closely matched, I think Hewitt's extra Grand Slam has to be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...


Alright... Roddick is going strong. But hes been on top for years with not much to account for it in the slam counts for being a consistent top 10 player.

But I get sick of the "He had to deal with Roger" excuse every time Roddick is mentioned when it comes to slams. Thats not all Federer. Its part Roddick's fault too for never developing a better overall game outside his serve and actually having a FH thats gotten WORSE instead of BETTER
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
I dont think people want take the longevity factor between these two into consideration. Its more easy just to say Hewitt hands down considering his results early on.. But it was short lived is the thing.
I think its closer than some care to see it between these two. Which is why I posed the question.
Click to expand...
The short lived part is disappointing, it's a bit like Courier. True greats last more than 3 or 5 years, and yes even Borg because he may have retired at 25 but he was already winning plenty at 18 (so that's an 8 year long prestigious career...)
 
RoddickAce said:
Roddick ended 2003 with the #1 ranking.
Click to expand...

That was my question, which I why I posed it as such. I didn't remember either way. But still for the "firsts"....Hewitt. Yet as I said, Roddick has the capacity and ability to continue to add to his titles and wins now in a way that Hewitt, overall, has lost.
 
Based on career accomplishments, Hewitt wins out because he won a second major title. Today, Roddick is the better player because Hewitt has lost some of speed.

During their prime years, here's is how I would break down their games:

Serve - Roddick (no brainer)

Return of serve - Hewitt (no brainer)

Forehand - Roddick - Roddick hits more winners and with more pace while Hewitt's forehand is more consistent and finds better angles is also better at full stretch and on the run.

Backhand - Hewitt - Hewitt's backhand was hard to breakdown.

Passing shots/lobs - Hewitt (no brainer)

court coverage - Hewitt he defended all areas of the court
better.

Volleys - Hewitt (Roddick looks lost up at net)

Mental toughness - Hewitt
 
Last edited:
Hewitt was handed free rides in Wimbledon '02 and US Open (umpire robbed Roddick
at the end of the 5th set). Roddick was injured in the French Open they played;
withdrew from
the '02 Aus Open
and after he gained 3 kilograms of fat, he totally tanked his matches in 2004 Masters Cup and 2005 Aus Open. Obviously, he denied that he did little to improve in this time
after he hired that loser Dean Goldfine.

He was also crippled with tendinitis and exhausted after
the linesman stole the 2003 Aus Open quarterfinal 3rd set. Time was really wasted.
 
devila said:
Hewitt was handed free rides in Wimbledon '02 and US Open (umpire robbed Roddick
at the end of the 5th set). Roddick was injured in the French Open they played;
withdrew from
the '02 Aus Open
and after he gained 3 kilograms of fat, he totally tanked his matches in 2004 Masters Cup and 2005 Aus Open. Obviously, he denied that he did little to improve in this time
after he hired that loser Dean Goldfine.

He was also crippled with tendinitis and exhausted after
the linesman stole the 2003 Aus Open quarterfinal 3rd set. Time was really wasted.
Click to expand...

A parade of excuses which could rival a Serena Williams's press conference.
:rolleyes:
 
Why would this be Serena-like? She and Hewitt have something in common. When Roddick beat him in 2004, Hewitt claimed, "I was in control of the match." Serena kept calling herself the #1 player, even after Henin beat her repeatedly. I mentioned the matches I've witnessed, unlike you. I mentioned his bad fitness when he won a match, so how is that just an excuse?
I'm not one of the fake Fed fans who cried, "mono and bad weather!!" excuses.
 
I would say Roddick. He's still a consistent tough player to beat for many on the tour (hardcourt & grass) though perhaps if Hewitt hadn't become a father and had other priorities he might still be really competitive. Tough call.
 
Hewiit narrowly over Roddick unless Roddick can grab another slam or 2.
 
Hewitt has up till now, I 'aint ruling Roddick out of being considered to have had a better career when the dust settles after both have retired. Right now Andy is still a threat and has a good chance to be back in the top 5 again once Miami is over, still a legit contender on his day for another slam imo as well. Also his recent work on fitness may well end up giving him a bit more longevity (barring injury)
 
tahiti said:
I would say Roddick. He's still a consistent tough player to beat for many on the tour (hardcourt & grass) though perhaps if Hewitt hadn't become a father and had other priorities he might still be really competitive. Tough call.
Click to expand...

what does father hood have to do with his hip injury?...
 
Hewitt easily.
Both of these players have come 2 sets away from achieving pretty much everything they dreamt of within tennis. Had Roddick beaten Federer in the Wimbledon 2004 final, and Hewitt beaten Safin the 2005 Australian Open final, then they both would have had no major regrets from their careers.
 
2 slams>>>1 slam

2 DC's>>>>1

about the same in terms of titles won.Hewitt was world #1 for 2 straight yearsso...;)
Hewitt has made the Quarters or better in all 4 majors ;)
 
GameSampras said:
Alright... Roddick is going strong. But hes been on top for years with not much to account for it in the slam counts for being a consistent top 10 player.
Click to expand...
Perhaps being a Sampras fan distorts your perception here, as it seems as though you can barely think about anything other than Slam counts with regards to accomplishments. For 99.9% of the field, just winning even one Slam at all is a dream, and this era in particular has been harder than any other in the history of the open era for anyone other than the absolute top two to be able to win any Grand Slam. If Roddick never wins a second Grand Slam title, he'll probably be the most accomplished player ever to finish his career with only one.

But I get sick of the "He had to deal with Roger" excuse every time Roddick is mentioned when it comes to slams. Thats not all Federer. Its part Roddick's fault too for never developing a better overall game outside his serve and actually having a FH thats gotten WORSE instead of BETTER
Click to expand...
There has just about never been a more legitimate "excuse." Federer has beaten Roddick in Slams seven times, six of those in the semifinals or higher, three in the actual finals. In '03-05, three seasons in a row, Roddick literally only lost to Federer on grass. All three years, he won Queens and made the final weekend at Wimbledon only to lose to Federer. In '04, he even seriously pushed Federer in the final. He was by far the best grass court player in the world after Federer. The odds that, in a world without Federer, Roddick would have won at least one Wimbledon title are overwhelming. What's more, I think it's also very plausible Roddick would have won one of the '06 US Open, '07 Australian Open, '07 US Open, and '09 Australian Opens without Federer there standing in his way. There is not one player on the tour who has been beaten as many times by Federer in semifinals or finals of Slams as Roddick has.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.
 
Joseph L. Barrow said:
Perhaps being a Sampras fan distorts your perception here, as it seems as though you can barely think about anything other than Slam counts with regards to accomplishments. For 99.9% of the field, just winning even one Slam at all is a dream, and this era in particular has been harder than any other in the history of the open era for anyone other than the absolute top two to be able to win any Grand Slam. If Roddick never wins a second Grand Slam title, he'll probably be the most accomplished player ever to finish his career with only one.


There has just about never been a more legitimate "excuse." Federer has beaten Roddick in Slams seven times, six of those in the semifinals or higher, three in the actual finals. In '03-05, three seasons in a row, Roddick literally only lost to Federer on grass. All three years, he won Queens and made the final weekend at Wimbledon only to lose to Federer. In '04, he even seriously pushed Federer in the final. He was by far the best grass court player in the world after Federer. The odds that, in a world without Federer, Roddick would have won at least one Wimbledon title are overwhelming. What's more, I think it's also very plausible Roddick would have won one of the '06 US Open, '07 Australian Open, '07 US Open, and '09 Australian Opens without Federer there standing in his way. There is not one player on the tour who has been beaten as many times by Federer in semifinals or finals of Slams as Roddick has.
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.
Click to expand...



Hewitt at that time had more game than Roddick had or has currently IMO. While Hewitt never possessed a big weapon such as the serve he was a deadly counterpuncher in his prime and had a pretty solid overrall game. While Roddick has always had gaping holes in his. Roddick doesnt win the USO 2001 IMO. Maybe a Wimbeldon. But its debatable.
 
WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis said:
I am curious if Roddick ever held the no.1 spot in the world of tennis. I don't think he ever did. Hewitt did so that would distinctly give him the edge. That alone would make his career more outstanding than Roddick's. Just on statistics more than the ones given, Hewitt had some outstanding "firsts".

Otherwise, at this point in time, though both might be considered in the latter days of their career comparatively (Hewitt much more than Roddick), I think Roddick has more titles still left in his game and career. Though I hate to say it, I don't think Hewitt does, although I would love for him to prove me wrong on that point.
Click to expand...

Yes, he was no. 1 for a while... I'd say Roddick, definitely.
 
GameSampras said:
Hewitt at that time had more game than Roddick had or has currently IMO. While Hewitt never possessed a big weapon such as the serve he was a deadly counterpuncher in his prime and had a pretty solid overrall game. While Roddick has always had gaping holes in his. Roddick doesnt win the USO 2001 IMO. Maybe a Wimbeldon. But its debatable.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.
 
hewwitt still to date, but with roddick, its still not quite over, maybe no slams but more masters titles should fall for him.

people disregard longevity??? really, did you guys disregarding career longevity forget all about a rebel gone bald named Andre?

he won a slam LATE in his career after hanging around the top for a few years with nothing to scream about. although roddick lacks alot of his game the possiblity still exists.
 
gj011 said:
This thread is a clear proof how much overrated Roddick is on this board. It is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

itsa hard to overrate someone who has been a top 10 players for literally years. hes past his prime but , my god, at least try to hold back the bias a little
 
deltox said:
itsa hard to overrate someone who has been a top 10 players for literally years. hes past his prime but , my god, at least try to hold back the bias a little
Click to expand...

Oh come on. To everyone who is not biased or blinded, it is clear that Hewitt's career is far superior and better than Roddick's. Ever attempting to compare their careers and argue that there is anything to talk about on this subject is overrating Roddick and actually quite laughable.
Unfortunately this board has been overrrun with Roddick fanboys with unrealistic and false expectations and silly evaluations of his acheivements.

It is getting ridiculous.
 
Joseph L. Barrow said:
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Roddick and Hewitt's ages are reversed, so that Roddick comes to the top in '01-02, while Hewitt doesn't get there until '03-04. In this scenario, I'd say the chances are overwhelming that Roddick would have won more than one Grand Slam, and Hewitt would probably have been limited to only one by Federer. This isn't to say that their factual records shouldn't stand- as I've said, when assessing who has had the better career, the first and foremost criteria should still stand firmly in the facts, and as such, Hewitt's repeat Grand Slam title still edges out anything Roddick has done thus far, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Also Hewitt has peaked earlier as grinders often do. He’s now playing at a professional level for more than 10 years. Roddick peaked a bit later but he has been very consistent over the years. He started to breakthrough at age 18 which is not bad at all for a power player.
By the way I have never seen Hewitt play better than the first set of the AO ‘05 final vs Safin. He could not have hit the ball nor served better and he was not able to maintain this the whole match, it was impossible. Same thing goes with Roddick and the Wimbledon final ’04 which he finally lost. These matches showed the very best of both players and the limits they would never overcome. These finals were turning points in their career, both Hewitt and Roddick, that’s at least what I felt at the time as a spectator.
 
Joseph L. Barrow said:
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.
Click to expand...

No.. The australian Open is ruled out. :). Roddick cannot and could not handle Agassi. Agassi figured Roddick's game out pretty quick even before Fed was doing so. Even with Andre riddened with back injuries later in his career I would still give Andre the edge over the Rod. Andre was taking Fed to five sets and four sets in the USO final after playing 3 straight 5 set matches at the USO. So Andre was clearly good enough at the time to take Roddick. No question about it.

Nalbandian was screwed over at the USO in 03 as far as Im concerned. That match should have went to him. Not Roddick.
 
Joseph L. Barrow said:
They don't have to be the exact same tournaments Hewitt won; it only need be more than one Slam- and keep in mind that this is a time period in which guys like an old wildcard Ivanisevic and Thomas Johansson were winning Grand Slam titles. Can you even imagine that happening in the last four years?:shock: Since we're talking about a Roddick here who is as good on grass as he was in '03-05 (good enough that only Federer beat him on the surface, that coming in the final weekend of Wimbledon for three consecutive seasons), the likelihood that he wins at least one Wimbledon in this period in which the Wimbledon title was "up in the air" is outstanding. The US Open was similarly changing hands year by year, and it is also plausible Roddick still wins the '03 title if he's a couple years older. I don't think an Australian Open can be ruled out, either, in a time period when an old Agassi and Johansson were trading titles there.
And, just as it isn't a given that Roddick wins the same Slams as Hewitt in his position, it isn't necessarily a given Hewitt pulls off the '03 US Open. I think Hewitt would still have managed a Slam regardless, but it is a thought. All of this is speculation, of course, and who has actually had the better career is not dependent on who hypothetically "would" have had the better career in a given scenario- I'm largely defending the fairness of the "Federer excuse" in this tangent.
Click to expand...

The only thing is, Roddick already lost to nearly everyone who was making slam finals at that time, and even in his best years was handled fairly comfortably by Hewitt and Agassi (best players of those '00-'02 years).

-He lost at Wimbledon to Goran who already was ranked almost 100 places lower, with how Goran was playing in that tournament it is difficult to see him getting through either he or Rafter anyway.

-He lost the US Open to Hewitt, who even at their bests was fairly dominant over Roddick, 6-2 at the end of 2005. Making Hewitt a year younger than him I doubt would change that.

-Agassi would not have lost the '01 or '03 Aussie Opens to Roddick. In '04 Safin was the one to beat number 1 Roddick in the Australian Open, so it is entirely plausible the the '02 finalist Safin would have beaten Roddick.

-Wimbledon '02 best oppourtunity, and even then it's possible that winner Hewitt could have beaten him along with a prime Henman.

-US Open '02 he was destroyed by Sampras, it is almost certain that another year of experience would not change that result.

I think you're underating the difficulty of the field from '01 and '02 just because Johansson and Costa won Slams in that period. It was still a deep field with a lot of very good players at the top challenging for Slams, the only thing is all of these guys were better than a prime Roddick as shown when they played big matches.
 
Roddick's peak coming in 2001 and 2002 instead of 2003 and 2004? He would have had a good shot at the 2002 Australian Open title IMO. He nearly beat Hewitt at the 2001 U.S Open despite being a shadow of the player he was in 2003-2004 so he has a great shot there. It is possible he has a shot at the 2002 U.S Open vs an old Sampras and Agassi if he were in his 2003-2004 form.

Roddick wasnt handled "comfortably" by an older Agassi once he began to mature as a player. In 2001 and 2002 he wasnt a mature player and had a poor record in slams with only two quarterfinals. In 2003 and 2004 they played 3 times. Agassi won a tough 3 setter after being a set and a break down on clay, and Roddick sucks on clay. Roddick won a close match on grass. Agassi then won I think in a 3rd set tiebreak on hard courts in 2004. So a peak Roddick was pretty equal to an aging Agassi by that point. Again just pointing this out in the hypothetical of his chances in 2001 and 2002.
 
grafselesfan said:
Roddick's peak coming in 2001 and 2002 instead of 2003 and 2004? He would have had a good shot at the 2002 Australian Open title IMO. He nearly beat Hewitt at the 2001 U.S Open despite being a shadow of the player he was in 2003-2004 so he has a great shot there. It is possible he has a shot at the 2002 U.S Open vs an old Sampras and Agassi if he were in his 2003-2004 form.

Roddick wasnt handled "comfortably" by an older Agassi once he began to mature as a player. In 2001 and 2002 he wasnt a mature player and had a poor record in slams with only two quarterfinals. In 2003 and 2004 they played 3 times. Agassi won a tough 3 setter after being a set and a break down on clay, and Roddick sucks on clay. Roddick won a close match on grass. Agassi then won I think in a 3rd set tiebreak on hard courts in 2004. So a peak Roddick was pretty equal to an aging Agassi by that point. Again just pointing this out in the hypothetical of his chances in 2001 and 2002.
Click to expand...


I dunno. Roddick was whiped off the court by Pete at the 02 USO. He didnt improve by leaps and bounds the following year at the 03 USO as say Fed did from 03-04. Nalbandian had Roddick there if not for some questionable calls.
 
GameSampras said:
I dunno. Roddick was whiped off the court by Pete at the 02 USO. He didnt improve by leaps and bounds the following year at the 03 USO as say Fed did from 03-04. Nalbandian had Roddick there if not for some questionable calls.
Click to expand...

Roddick DID improve by leaps and bounds from 2002 to 2003. In 2002 he ended the year ranked #9 in the world, in 2003 he was #1 at years end vs a stronger field. In 2002 he couldnt even get a set off Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon, but in 2003 it was Rusedski who couldnt get a set off Roddick when they played at Wimbledon. How can you say Federer improved by leaps and bounds and Roddick didnt it, when Federer in fact ended 2002 ranked ahead of Roddick, and yet ended 2003 ranked just behind, despite that Federer yes did improve a great deal too. Of course after 2003 Roddick's improvement would never again match up to Federer's but from 2002 to 2003 he improved more than anyone, including even Federer.

At the 2002 U.S Open young Roddick who had a bit of an injury played a very poor quarterfinal with Sampras and Sampras played unbelievable tennis that day which would have beaten even a prime Federer or Agassi probably, despite that he was fast his prime. A champion like Sampras can do those things, that is why he is such a great player. Sampras was probably charged up considering he had lost twice in a row to Roddick, and he was probably also annoyed at how he was being written off by people, and how overhyped Roddick was at the time so I wasnt at all surprised he came out fired up and crushed him. A young pre-prime Roddick went 2-1 vs an aging Sampras in 2001-2002, pretty good considering he will never be anywhere near the player Sampras is.

I am far from a Roddick fan and he will never be a legend of tennis, but he is still a much better player than many seem willing to give him credit for. The 2001-2002 was weaker and yes he would have more chances to win multiple majors then 2003-2004 is all someone was saying and perfectly reasonable IMO. Granted there are few years in the history of tennis as weak as 2001
-2002 so Roddick would have really lucked out in this case somewhat.
 
Last edited:
grafselesfan said:
Roddick DID improve by leaps and bounds from 2002 to 2003. In 2002 he ended the year ranked #9 in the world, in 2003 he was #1 at years end vs a stronger field. In 2002 he couldnt even get a set off Greg Rusedski at Wimbledon, but in 2003 it was Rusedski who couldnt get a set off Roddick when they played at Wimbledon. How can you say Federer improved by leaps and bounds and Roddick didnt it, when Federer in fact ended 2002 ranked ahead of Roddick, and yet ended 2003 ranked just behind, despite that Federer yes did improve a great deal too. Of course after 2003 Roddick's improvement would never again match up to Federer's but from 2002 to 2003 he improved more than anyone, including even Federer.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was watching a different Roddick. LOL. I just didnt notice THAT MUCH of a difference in Roddick aside from his rise in the rankings. . He still had trouble beating way passed his prime Andre during that period. Hes always been the same old roddick to me. Gaping holes in his game exploited by the great players. Great players will always find a way to exploit a player like Roddick. Hes always been average off the ground. Certainly no marvel when it comes to baseline play, net game, movement etc. BH has never been anything to write home about. And a FH that has decreased in power.

I always looked a Roddick as solid enough to maintain a high level of consistency and solid ranking. But not good enough to dominate the entire field. There would always been 1-2 players around who could figure Roddick out and exploit his weaknesses.
 
Last edited:
GameSampras said:
Maybe I was watching a different Roddick. LOL. I just didnt notice THAT MUCH of a difference in Roddick aside from his rise in the rankings. . He still had trouble beating way passed his prime Andre during that period. Hes always been the same old roddick to me. Gaping holes in his game exploited by the great players. Great players will always find a way to exploit a player like Roddick. Hes always been average off the ground. Certainly no marvel when it comes to baseline play, net game, movement etc. BH has never been anything to write home about. And a FH that has decreased in power.

I always looked a Roddick as solid enough to maintain a high level of consistency and solid ranking. But not good enough to dominate the entire field
Click to expand...

Yes you are right in a way. Roddick has always had gaping holes in his game. He was never going to be an all time great as the American media potrayed him as having the potential to be. He did play his best tennis ever in 2003-2004 though by far. The forehand was a killer those two years, much more than any other year. His strategy was better since he was working with Gilbert, one of the genuises of tennis, and his confidence was higher.

Yeah he had trouble beating a past his prime Agassi, but in 2001-2002 even a past his prime Agassi had no trouble beating a young Roddick, whereas in 2003-2004 when they played they atleast were evenly matched and both having trouble. Again so it shows his improvement which is my only point. I am not trying to compare him to a prime Federer, prime Agassi, or prime Sampras and saying he is in the same league.

Yes Roddick would never be a dominant player in any year or era, we agree on that. He doesnt have the talent or ability for that. Even in 2001-2002 he wouldnt have been. He could have battled Hewitt and an aging Agassi for the #1 ranking and maybe won more than 1 slam, but never would have dominated, and 2001-2002 were two of the weakest years ever so whatever he would do those years would be pretty much his max anytime. In a pretty strong field like we had this year and last year he has to work hard to not get buried altogether. I admire him for atleast continuing to fight, but yeah I see what you are saying. There are many eras Roddick may have won 0 slams, depending on various forms of luck and how they played out (eg- draws, injuries).
 
Last edited:
By far Hewitt. One more year end #1, one more slam, the year end Championships twice, the winning head to head. What is there to even discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Who is rooting for Marcos Baghdatis?
Replies
26
Views
2K
skip1969
skip1969
GameSampras
Rafter or Hewitt. Who was the greater Aussie?
2 3
Replies
102
Views
14K
Tennisfans1
T
GoatNo1
no1e was first to 100M in prize money. will he be first to 200M or will he retired before that milestone?
2 3 4
Replies
181
Views
4K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
atatu
Ranking Paes, Bhupathi and Bopana
Replies
13
Views
1K
Shaj
S
TMF
Top 10 Winningest Tennis Player of All Time
4 5 6
Replies
286
Views
23K
Povl Carstensen
P
Back
Top