So, Roddick (who is from the weak era) beats a player from the strong era. So, is this still the weak era?
Anyone who says the era of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Fed was weak has no business discussing tennis anywhere. Fed made his competition look weak because he brought the game to a new level and forced everyone else to step up even more .
Well said. Its a shame everyone chokes against him, he is just lucky in all games, especially with the hawkeye. I even heard that Federer financed the hawk eye system to give himself an edge over his opponents. Watch out!Incorrect I'm afraid. It's because they were all pathetic tennis players who also choked on many occasions, hence allowing that talentless arrogant player Federer to win slams. All his slams in the weak era have an asterisk because he didn't have to play Nadal.
Anyone who says the era of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Fed was weak has no business discussing tennis anywhere. Fed made his competition look weak because he brought the game to a new level and forced everyone else to step up even more .
uh-oh, I guess we need to get used to a lot of threads like this one in the coming weeks.
Well, anyway, let's wait until US Open for Djoko, Murray and Nads to make noise.
The Weak Era Whiner will even be stumped by this one...So, Roddick (who is from the weak era) beats a player from the strong era. So, is this still the weak era?
Well look at Roddick's ranking in the strong era compared to the weak era. That says it all. It's not like his old or anything. There are 3 more players in the equation now that are consistent.The Weak Era Whiner will even be stumped by this one...
- KK
It depends on what you like. For me, if the outcomes are predictable it's a weak era. If the field is strong enough it gets interesting.
Well look at Roddick's ranking in the strong era compared to the weak era. That says it all. It's not like his old or anything. There are 3 more players in the equation now that are consistent.
Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.So no one ever slipped down the rankings before?
Murray has his highest ranking to date and Roddick imo isn't the player he once was and yet still beat Murray when it counts most, in a slam.
Only problem with your theory is that he was slipping down before Murray and Djokovic moved ahead of him. Ergo, he was slipping down well before the aforementioned "three more consistent players" came along to crash the 'weak era party'.Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Rodick's backend as of now sucks. He used to have a real weapon on both sides so I do agree with you - he isn't as good as he used to be.
ANyway - he works as hard as always and just beat Murray.
Murray is weak mentally - he doesn't do well in slams.
Actually Roddick was slipping in the rankings most in 2006(when Djokovic and Murray were barely making any noise at all)when he even fell out of top 10 briefly,that was quite possibly the biggest slump of his career so far.
He also outperformed both Murray and Djokovic at slams this year and has also beaten both at slams this year.So in the biggest tournaments this year he's better than them.
Actually Roddick's hitting BH at the moment far better than he ever did.
Just like they were suppose to at AO, FO and Wimbledon (obviously exlcuding Nadal) this year?uh-oh, I guess we need to get used to a lot of threads like this one in the coming weeks.
Well, anyway, let's wait until US Open for Djoko, Murray and Nads to make noise.
Roddick from a few years ago would challenge Nadal with the way he is playing atm.Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Just like they were suppose to at AO, FO and Wimbledon (obviously exlcuding Nadal) this year?
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.He also outperformed both Murray and Djokovic at slams this year and has also beaten both at slams this year.So in the biggest tournaments this year he's better than them.
Actually Roddick's hitting BH at the moment far better than he ever did.
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
Where were Djokovic and Murray again? I should of meant excluding Nadal from all.Nadal won the Australian Open. I would say that is making some major noise.
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
The US Open is Andy Murray's favorite surface and I disagree with you saying Wimbledon isn't Roddick's favorite surface. He was closest to beating Federer there. Roddick won US Open 2003 because Federer lost to Nalbandian. Roddick has been to 3 Wimbledon Finals and 1 Semifinal at Wimbledon.Most people would not pick Andy Murray the next time they play. Roddick is actually a favorite. Fast hardcourts are Roddick's specialty.
The US Open is Andy Murray's favorite surface and I disagree with you saying Wimbledon isn't Roddick's favorite surface. He was closest to beating Federer there. Roddick won US Open 2003 because Federer lost to Nalbandian. Roddick has been to 3 Wimbledon Finals and 1 Semifinal at Wimbledon.
.
Strong era is when someone other than Fed or Nadal wins more than one slam.
It's in the distribution.
Federer--15
Nadal--6
Murray--0
Djokovic--1
Del Potro--0
Roddick--1
Simon--0
Tsonga--0
Verdasco--0
Gonzalez--0
Incorrect I'm afraid. It's because they were all pathetic tennis players who also choked on many occasions, hence allowing that talentless arrogant player Federer to win slams. All his slams in the weak era have an asterisk because he didn't have to play Nadal.
It would have been mighty close between fed and Roddick. Nalbandian was extremely close to routing Roddick in 3 straight sets but Nalbandian pulled one of his choke jobs (like nadal at IW 09) and lost the match in the next 3 sets easily.That's such bullcrap. Roddick beat Federer in Montreal in 2003. What's to say he wouldn't beat him again? Roddick beat an absolutely on fire Nalbandian who routined Federer in the previous round. I'd say Roddick wins if they did play.
Strong era is when someone other than Fed or Nadal wins more than one slam.
It's in the distribution.
Federer--15
Nadal--6
Murray--0
Djokovic--1
Del Potro--0
Roddick--1
Simon--0
Tsonga--0
Verdasco--0
Gonzalez--0
It would have been mighty close between fed and Roddick. Nalbandian was extremely close to routing Roddick in 3 straight sets but Nalbandian pulled one of his choke jobs (like nadal at IW 09) and lost the match in the next 3 sets easily.