How Good Was Roddick?

[stosurforehand]

yea it got to the point by 2006, I just stopped watching their matches because you knew roddick walked on to the court already accepting defeat. Then he tried to become a pusher and that was even more pathetic because he didn’t have the movement, speed, athleticism to deploy that tactic. I can’t believe he never developed an even halfway decent net game to go with his big serve and FH combo. never made any sense to me
It’s a shame because he did have Fed in a compromising spot at least half a dozen times in slams and he blew it each time
In 2009 at Wimbledon you sat there to yourself and say, “yea just watch roddick will find a way to blow this match”. Sure enough LOL

Yeah I had no interest in Roddick-Federer matches after 2005 either, and I really like both players to boot.

 

[Red Rick]

His boneheadedness and lack of belief against Fed frustrated me to no end. Nobody is going to argue that he was good enough to go 50/50 with Roger, but he could definitely have won one of the close ones at Wimbledon or made things closer at the Open. Strangely bad at attacking short balls for an "aggressive" player.

What tactical change was there to make? Nothing. The Federer Roddick matchup was uniquely disgusting. Federer outreturned him hard and could then reset any rally by getting to Roddicks backhand. You can argue he should've used the down the line backhand, and he barely used it, but Roddick gave his best effort every time in a big match.

yea it got to the point by 2006, I just stopped watching their matches because you knew roddick walked on to the court already accepting defeat. Then he tried to become a pusher and that was even more pathetic because he didn’t have the movement, speed, athleticism to deploy that tactic. I can’t believe he never developed an even halfway decent net game to go with his big serve and FH combo. never made any sense to me
It’s a shame because he did have Fed in a compromising spot at least half a dozen times in slams and he blew it each time
In 2009 at Wimbledon you sat there to yourself and say, “yea just watch roddick will find a way to blow this match”. Sure enough LOL

Bet you felt very vindicated eating cheerios watching some NFL brain damage derby

 

[Rosstour]

Remember the whole "Rafa won't have a long career bc his play style is too demanding" thing?

I once read the same thing about Roddick, and more specifically that he would wash down anti-inflammatories at the end of every match in the locker room. I guess that caught up with him, and relatively early.

 

[mike danny]

He sucked because Federer played him.

@Rosstour

 

[mike danny]

I've said it many times before, if not for just one pesky rival Roddick would likely have a Becker-esque reputation as a grass-courter; he could have achieved an unprecedented triple-double of winning Wimbledon AND Queens for three consecutive years. I do feel a little sympathy for him coming so close, yet still missing out by so much that he barely scraped into the HoF.

However, if he HAD enjoyed a Becker-esque career I'd likely be bemoaning the fact that such a one-dimensional pro, who was well short of greatness in both his volleying and his backhand, was seen as an equal of Boris on grass, when the German was clearly a much more complete player.

This is exactly how I feel. He was good, but not Becker good.

He should've won one Wimb though. I'd say 2-3 slams would have been a good reflection of his ability.

 

[mike danny]

Honestly Matteo Berreitini plays similar to Roddick and he’s having trouble winning majors. Big serve. Big forehand. And slices his backhand bc his two hander hasn’t gotten anywhere.

Berrettini is a Walmart Roddick though. Roddick was 10 times better.

 

[Rosstour]

He sucked because Federer played him.

@Rosstour

I can't compliment Roddick because it will just be seen as Fed worship.

 

[mike danny]

He is also mentally weaker. I am completely convinced of this now. Not that I think Roddick is some huge mental giant, but he easily comes ahead of Berrettini in that category too.

The one advantage he has over Roddick is he does not go through periods of time (yet in his career anyway) he just spins his potentially huge forehand and plays defensively for no reason at all, but beyond that I agree.

Berrettini is at least aggressive with the FH all the time unlike Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

1. Berretini is a poor man's version of Raonic who in turn is a poor man's version of Roddick. Berr's serve isn't at the same level as those 2 honestly.
2. Roddick's BH was much better than Berretini, as was his movement. His movement was fine in 2001-05 as well, though obviously not at big 4 level.
3. Roddick could actually hit his FH when being moved around by good players, unlike Berretini
4. Roddick was actually very clutch in Wim 09, saving 6/7 BPs (well fed missed one) and broke when he got the chances with very good BHs. only -ve was that one missed volley in the 2nd set TB.

Roddick moved great in 2009 too.

 

[mike danny]

He was to become world number 1 for a year or so and the best grass court player of his era. But then Federer came and put him in his proper place.

Very one dimensional serve and forehand player. He was slightly better than Berrettini, clearly better on grass I think, and more consistent.

Slightly, really? Just slightly?

 

[Herald]

What tactical change was there to make? Nothing. The Federer Roddick matchup was uniquely disgusting. Federer outreturned him hard and could then reset any rally by getting to Roddicks backhand. You can argue he should've used the down the line backhand, and he barely used it, but Roddick gave his best effort every time in a big match.

-Down the line backhand
-Do NOT hit traditional, 90s era approach shots and run in like a clueless rhino expecting to win the point based off of good volleying skill, which you do not have
-Building off of that, learn how to actually punish slice balls so that you eventually get a floater volley that you CAN put away
-Improve your shot tolerance, movement and fitness, all of which were at times pitiful, so you can punish 3 to 4 slices in a row and get that floater volley or better yet hit a winner from the back

It was a marvel to see Roddick regularly get slice backhands from Federer and then either hit a neutral shot or hit the most cringeworthy approach and rush in only to get passed again, and again, and again.

 

[Herald]

I can't compliment Roddick because it will just be seen as Fed worship.

You can complement him with your backhand though.

 

[bnjkn]

Slightly, really? Just slightly?

I'd say 2003 Roddick was much better than Berrettini, but Roddick's form faded considerably after 2004.

I guess the Federer beatings took their toll on his perception as a player. Roddick was hyped a bit after Sampras retired, and I think he at some point believed he would be really big. It was very tough for any aspiring player at the time (though Nadal managed to survive, but Nadal is obviously a thousand times better than Roddick) since Federer was raising the bar extremely high.

 

[mike danny]

I'd say 2003 Roddick was much better than Berrettini, but Roddick's form faded considerably after 2004.

I guess the Federer beatings took their toll on his perception as a player. Roddick was hyped a bit after Sampras retired, and I think he at some point believed he would be really big. It was very tough for any aspiring player at the time (though it seems Nadal managed to survive, but Nadal is obviously a thousand times better than Roddick) since Federer was raising the bar extremely high.

2009 alone makes Roddick 10 times better than Berrettini.

 

[bnjkn]

2009 alone makes Roddick 10 times better than Berrettini.

Ok. You could be right, but I have to think about that. I was disappointed with Federer's performance at that W match. He was supposed to completely destroy Roddick and he didn't. Though I think Federer was at a very high level at the other 2009 slams, so you might be right.

 

[Jack the Hack]

My memory could be off on this, but I think there was a period of time when Roddick started to hit with more spin on his forehand instead of flattening it out. The goal was to increase consistency, but the result was less winners and less effective results against the top players. I think it correlated with a philosophy change where he also dropped weight to become a better mover, which I believe was pushed by Larry Stefanki as his coach. In my mind, this was bad because it turned Andy into a slower version of David Ferrer, when his game really was centered around a big power serve +1. But I could be misrepresenting this... and the coach that pushed it.

To the point of one of the posts up above, Roddick's body didn't have the durability that we're seeing with many players today. Andy retired in 2012. That is going on 11 years ago... and since Roddick is only 40 years old now, that puts him at 29 or 30 when he gave it up. I have to think he did pretty good squeezing all the accomplishments that he had into such a narrow career arch. He's less than 4 years older than Rafa and a year younger than Federer. And yet, he came on the scene, did his thing, and left while those guys persisted for another decade.

 

[Rosstour]

You can complement him with your backhand though.

He was a great player in a vacuum but not quite good enough to even have a Sampras-Agassi thing with Fed. He definitely had a similar problem as Murray did, but Murray was a much better player

 

[Mustard]

I agree from an apples-to-apples comparison of their looks. Brooklyn was a model, while Mirka was an athlete, so Andy's wife was always going to win the battle in a beauty contest.

That said, to be fair, Mirka has been a perfect match for Roger given their shared tennis backgrounds and her dedication to his career and family. She was a world-class athlete, Olympian, and millionaire in her own right when they got together, so she was a catch for him.

Another consideration in the discussion about how good Roddick was is that he also supposedly conquered Mount Sharapova at one point while he was a bachelor. That's a Hall of Fame accomplishment right there.

Mirka also loved Roger before Roger was a big star. That's got to be precious for Roger.

My memory could be off on this, but I think there was a period of time when Roddick started to hit with more spin on his forehand instead of flattening it out. The goal was to increase consistency, but the result was less winners and less effective results against the top players.

Yes, when he replaced Brad Gilbert as his coach with Dean Goldfine at the end of 2004. Roddick became more consistent in his all round game, but lost the major forehand weapon of before, which meant an inferior player really. Jimmy Connors started coaching Roddick in the summer of 2006 and helped Roddick to improve his backhand, but Roddick never quite got back that old power forehand that was there in 2003-2004 in particular.

I think it correlated with a philosophy change where he also dropped weight to become a better mover, which I believe was pushed by Larry Stefanki as his coach. In my mind, this was bad because it turned Andy into a slower version of David Ferrer, when his game really was centered around a big power serve +1. But I could be misrepresenting this... and the coach that pushed it.

Yeah, the Stefanki approach focused on improving Roddick's movement.

To the point of one of the posts up above, Roddick's body didn't have the durability that we're seeing with many players today. Andy retired in 2012. That is going on 11 years ago... and since Roddick is only 40 years old now, that puts him at 29 or 30 when he gave it up. I have to think he did pretty good squeezing all the accomplishments that he had into such a narrow career arch. He's less than 4 years older than Rafa and a year younger than Federer. And yet, he came on the scene, did his thing, and left while those guys persisted for another decade.

Roddick could have gone on for years more, like Hewitt did. The big difference is that Hewitt liked the challenge of competing and playing matches no matter where he was ranked, but Roddick wanted to be among the very top players and started to lose interest when his form declined too much. Not that it's wrong, just different. Some players don't like to carry on until they become a shell of what they once were, but others want to carry on competing until they squeeze every last bit of achievement and enjoyment out of the game. Andy Murray is clearly a Hewitt type in this regard.

 

[Herald]

He was a great player in a vacuum but not quite good enough to even have a Sampras-Agassi thing with Fed. He definitely had a similar problem as Murray did, but Murray was a much better player

Very few players in history could have a Sampras-Agassi thing with Roger. I would have been satisfied with a Rafter-Sampras rivalry.

 

[abmk]

Roddick moved great in 2009 too.

True, but I was responding to the part saying Roddick only moved good in the later part of his career. Hence the "as well"

 

[initialize]

Considering he has a leading H2H over near-peak Djokovic, I’d say he’s pretty damn good

 

[DSH]

He deserved to win Wimbledon 2009 but he choked, sadly.

 

[MeatTornado]

To the point of one of the posts up above, Roddick's body didn't have the durability that we're seeing with many players today. Andy retired in 2012. That is going on 11 years ago... and since Roddick is only 40 years old now, that puts him at 29 or 30 when he gave it up.

His career easily could've kept going if he wanted it to. It was mental burnout more than his body not being able to handle it. It's not like he suffered a career ending injury. He needed surgery on his shoulder (I think that's what it was), but he just didn't have the motivation to go through that, plus the rehab, plus the work it would take to get back in form. He admitted that he knew his chances of winning slams was over anyway, and he didn't want to keep going just to hang around as a top 50 guy competing for 250s and 500s.

Would you rather be like Gasquet for the last 10 years, or settle down with your supermodel wife and start a family?

 

[Herald]

He deserved to win Wimbledon 2009 but he choked, sadly.

The one that got away sadly.

 

[Razer]

My memory could be off on this, but I think there was a period of time when Roddick started to hit with more spin on his forehand instead of flattening it out. The goal was to increase consistency, but the result was less winners and less effective results against the top players. I think it correlated with a philosophy change where he also dropped weight to become a better mover, which I believe was pushed by Larry Stefanki as his coach. In my mind, this was bad because it turned Andy into a slower version of David Ferrer, when his game really was centered around a big power serve +1. But I could be misrepresenting this... and the coach that pushed it.

To the point of one of the posts up above, Roddick's body didn't have the durability that we're seeing with many players today. Andy retired in 2012. That is going on 11 years ago... and since Roddick is only 40 years old now, that puts him at 29 or 30 when he gave it up. I have to think he did pretty good squeezing all the accomplishments that he had into such a narrow career arch. He's less than 4 years older than Rafa and a year younger than Federer. And yet, he came on the scene, did his thing, and left while those guys persisted for another decade.

Being 1 year younger to Federer and less than 4 years older to Rafa is not a very pleasant territory to be in. Put Murray in this territory and I assure you all of his slams evaporate, he might be a better player than Roddick but it doesn't matter, everything he won goes up in smoke, all his wimbledons and his lone US open title.

Roddick definitely had stamina issues but he could have easily played until 2016/2017 and even won minor titles here and there and been QF in slams if he tried, but all the beatings in the 2000s had taken its toll on him and by 2012 he saw the baseline era was at its peak and even if he put all that hardwork to make a comeback he is not reaching a wimbledon final again, let alone win it. So he gave up. Not everybody thinks like David Ferrer / Feliciano Lopez / Karlovic.

Hell Roddick's serve would have ensured that he could win ATP 250s and 500s until he is 40, but that was not his style, he wanted slams and he was too demotivated at what he saw at the slams level in 2012.

 

[mike danny]

Ok. You could be right, but I have to think about that. I was disappointed with Federer's performance at that W match. He was supposed to completely destroy Roddick and he didn't. Though I think Federer was at a very high level at the other 2009 slams, so you might be right.

2009 Wimb Fed would destroy Berrettini anyway.

 

[Red Rick]

2009 Wimb Fed would destroy Berrettini anyway.

You sure?

Funnily enough "berrettini falling gif" gives many more results than this

 

[abmk]

2009 Wimb Fed would destroy Berrettini anyway.

2019 fed destroyed Berretini lol.
He is a poor man's version of Raonic who in turn is a poor man's version of Roddick.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Mirka... was a world-class athlete, Olympian, and millionaire in her own right when they got together.

Did she have some get-rich-quick scheme on the side that I don't know about? Because she was never even top 50 in the WTA, never won a top-level title, and had career earnings of less than $300k when she retired. She doesn't seem to have millionaire parents, so I don't think she was ever having bathtubs of champagne until her seed investment in The International Federer Corporation™ paid off.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Did she have some get-rich-quick scheme on the side that I don't know about? Because she was never even top 50 in the WTA, never won a top-level title, and had career earnings of less than $300k when she retired. She doesn't seem to have millionaire parents, so I don't think she was ever having bathtubs of champagne until her seed investment in The International Federer Corporation™ paid off.

Mirka was a millionaire by her early 20s due her on-court professional winnings ($260k), her numerous endorsements as a top ranked Swiss player (from Nike, Yonex, Sanex, and a jewelry brand at the time), and support from the Swiss Tennis Federation. Several net worth lists had her in the $1 million to $1.5 million range when she retired from the tour due to the chronic foot injury.

Also to note, when her and Roger started dating, he was a dork that had a 30-27 record on the tour, who had not yet won a tournament, nor made a Slam QF, and had only made it past the 1st round at any of the Master's Series events twice (losing in the 2nd round both times). She's a couple years older than him and Roger was reaching up at the time. They met at the Olympics when they were carrying the Swiss flag together in the opening ceremonies and he was smitten. From what I heard (as told by Fed in person at an event I worked at), Roger said Mirka was not initially interested in him at all, but he was persistant in going after her.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Mirka was a millionaire by her early 20s due her on-court professional winnings ($260k), her numerous endorsements as a top ranked Swiss player (from Nike, Yonex, Sanex, and a jewelry brand at the time), and support from the Swiss Tennis Federation. Several net worth lists had her in the $1 million to $1.5 million range when she retired from the tour due to the chronic foot injury.

Also to note, when her and Roger started dating, he was a dork that had a 30-27 record on the tour, who had not yet won a tournament, nor made a Slam QF, and had only made it past the 1st round at any of the Master's Series events twice (losing in the 2nd round both times). She's a couple years older than him and Roger was reaching up at the time. They met at the Olympics when they were carrying the Swiss flag together in the opening ceremonies and he was smitten. From what I heard (as told by Fed in person at an event I worked at), Roger said Mirka was not initially interested in him at all, but he was persistant in going after her.

Ok, that's a no, then. She wasn't a millionaire.

Her gross earnings across four years of grinding the WTA Tour averaged less than $70k annually, before costs like accommodation, travel, and coaching are factored in, and taxes are paid. Swiss top ten players (e.g. Hingis and Schnyder) will have attracted much more attention, while others like Gagliardi, Mikaelian, and Casanova all progressed further up the rankings and/or won titles. Sponsorship is likely to have been a trickle; Switzerland may be a wealthy country, but it's not a big tennis market. Vavrinec would have received free apparel from Nike/Yonex and maybe a small stipend as well, but the idea she was rolling in dough from endorsements is crazy. The top players make bank. The ones ranked 70-something do not.

Here's multiple corroborating sources all saying the same; outside the top 50-100 or so, a "sponsorship deal" is unlikely to pay you any money at all, just provide free equipment.[Forbes][RacketLife blog][coach and ex-satellite player on Quora][Tennis Bros website]

Non-equipment sponsors will pay, but again, not much. Sanex was the WTA's title sponsor in the early 2000s. They likely had an agreement to give a token amount to any top 100 Tour player who wore their logo. Same with the jewellery brand; I don't know what company exactly it was, but both her parents were apparently jewellers. Is it maybe just a family connection? It's certainly wasn't Harry Winston.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Very few players in history could have a Sampras-Agassi thing with Roger. I would have been satisfied with a Rafter-Sampras rivalry.

Should have been something similiar to Rafter/Sampras at least. A big slam win or two over Fed. Thats not asking for too much as limited as Roddick was many times. There were a few times Fed was vulnerable

 

[Jack the Hack]

Ok, that's a no, then. She wasn't a millionaire.

Her gross earnings across four years of grinding the WTA Tour averaged less than $70k annually, before costs like accommodation, travel, and coaching are factored in, and taxes are paid. Swiss top ten players (e.g. Hingis and Schnyder) will have attracted much more attention, while others like Gagliardi, Mikaelian, and Casanova all progressed further up the rankings and/or won titles. Sponsorship is likely to have been a trickle; Switzerland may be a wealthy country, but it's not a big tennis market. Vavrinec would have received free apparel from Nike/Yonex and maybe a small stipend as well, but the idea she was rolling in dough from endorsements is crazy. The top players make bank. The ones ranked 70-something do not.

Here's multiple corroborating sources all saying the same; outside the top 50-100 or so, a "sponsorship deal" is unlikely to pay you any money at all, just provide free equipment.[Forbes][RacketLife blog][coach and ex-satellite player on Quora][Tennis Bros website]

Non-equipment sponsors will pay, but again, not much. Sanex was the WTA's title sponsor in the early 2000s. They likely had an agreement to give a token amount to any top 100 Tour player who wore their logo. Same with the jewellery brand; I don't know what company exactly it was, but both her parents were apparently jewellers. Is it maybe just a family connection? It's certainly wasn't Harry Winston.

Believe whatever you want. I have some insider information, but none of this really matters, especially in relation to the topic of this thread.

 

[Herald]

Ok. You could be right, but I have to think about that. I was disappointed with Federer's performance at that W match. He was supposed to completely destroy Roddick and he didn't. Though I think Federer was at a very high level at the other 2009 slams, so you might be right.

Rog was shivering like a house of cards because he was on the brink of breaking the Grand Slam record, a position which he knew full well he had no right to be in. This, in addition to Roddick playing some of his best ever baseline point construction tennis is why he almost lost that match.

 

[bnjkn]

Rog was shivering like a house of cards because he was on the brink of breaking the Grand Slam record, a position which he knew full well he had no right to be in. This, in addition to Roddick playing some of his best ever baseline point construction tennis is why he almost lost that match.

I think he had every right to be in that position. He'd played the best tennis I've ever seen over the previous 4-5 years, so it was really well deserved. He was probably pretty nervous though, that's true.

 

[jrepac]

Honestly Matteo Berreitini plays similar to Roddick and he’s having trouble winning majors. Big serve. Big forehand. And slices his backhand bc his two hander hasn’t gotten anywhere.

Roddick was a big serve and forehand and everything else was average for an ATP pro. If you could break his serve chances are you’re taking the set. Andy improved his fitness dropping weight and better mover towards the latter of his prime but it still wasn’t good enough.

He mentally couldn’t overcome Federer. He had every opportunity to beat Federer in 2009 and he mentally fell apart displaying poor IQ in key moments of that match when he had Federer on the ropes.

I have to agree; first time I saw Matteo play, I thought of Roddick. Andy was very, very good, but he was up against a GOAT player, let's face it. He should have snagged a couple of Wimbledon's and at least 1 more USO, if not for Fed. His movement was just OK. If you remember, Connors tried to work on his transition game....made some progress, but there was always an awkwardness about it. I do wonder if he would've been more successful as a pure S&V guy. He could certainly bring the heat on the serve.

 

[jrepac]

Roddick's groundstrokes and volleys were all inferior to Courier's.

Definitely agree on the groundies. Courier was much steadier/stronger.

 

[jrepac]

yea it got to the point by 2006, I just stopped watching their matches because you knew roddick walked on to the court already accepting defeat. Then he tried to become a pusher and that was even more pathetic because he didn’t have the movement, speed, athleticism to deploy that tactic. I can’t believe he never developed an even halfway decent net game to go with his big serve and FH combo. never made any sense to me
It’s a shame because he did have Fed in a compromising spot at least half a dozen times in slams and he blew it each time
In 2009 at Wimbledon you sat there to yourself and say, “yea just watch roddick will find a way to blow this match”. Sure enough LOL

that 2009 final had to be one of the most painful matches I've ever watched....it just hurt to see him lose in such a fashion. Guess karma is a b##ch, since Fed got the the short end of that stick in 2019.

 

[jrepac]

Great server, subpar athlete, below average movement, very hard worker, horrible net game, at one time a great forehand one of the best for sure. Very good player he was. Not great. But the best we have had since Pete, Andre, Courier, Chang. Though.. that’s not saying much since all we had are crappy players since LOL. But I have learned to appreciate him more after I have seen all the rotten players that have come since then

After watching the AO, I think there may be some hope.....some of the young guys were very impressive. Never saw Wolf before....the kid can bring it. Shelton was amazing (better than his Dad, for sure!). Fritz, who I have been following for some time, has kind of let us down. He can't seem to get to week 2 at the GS events. Makes no sense as his game is tremendous. I have some outside money bet on Tiafoe, as I think he's capable of greatness as well, under the right circumstances. I'm actually excited by what I see on the men's side, for a change.

 

[Herald]

Definitely agree on the groundies. Courier was much steadier/stronger.

Courier was also a very solid volleyer. He knew when and how to come in and finish points.

 

[mental midget]

2009 alone makes Roddick 10 times better than Berrettini.

yeah berrettini seems like a great guy but not a huge fan of his game. janky serve motion, very slappy, wristy fh that yes he can hit hard but also makes for depth problems, lack of accuracy, and harder to hit on a full stretch. roddick's 1st/2nd serves were significantly better.

one thing about berrettini, he's actually got good touch and a very nice slice. as a result he seems like a player caught between two styles of play and without a clear game plan.

 

[mental midget]

Definitely agree on the groundies. Courier was much steadier/stronger.

no question. and that's partly a function of courier's movement, very quick and fit, got himself in good position to execute his game.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

yeah berrettini seems like a great guy but not a huge fan of his game. janky serve motion, very slappy, wristy fh that yes he can hit hard but also makes for depth problems, lack of accuracy, and harder to hit on a full stretch. roddick's 1st/2nd serves were significantly better.

one thing about berrettini, he's actually got good touch and a very nice slice. as a result he seems like a player caught between two styles of play and without a clear game plan.

Berretini was more of a late bloomer - aka medvedev too.

 

[socallefty]

Charles Barkley reviews Roddick’s baseline game.

 

[mental midget]

Berretini was more of a late bloomer - aka medvedev too.

yeah...he seems like a guy who i'm guessing built a game that worked great in the juniors, i could see a bigger kid like him just bossing kids around with that heavy fh and big serve, strong enough to compensate for maybe not so great technique.

i mean on the other hand...the guy is doing more than ok, this is just critique at the very highest level of the game.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

yeah...he seems like a guy who i'm guessing built a game that worked great in the juniors, i could see a bigger kid like him just bossing kids around with that heavy fh and big serve, strong enough to compensate for maybe not so great technique.

i mean on the other hand...the guy is doing more than ok, this is just critique at the very highest level of the game.

His game is suited for grass similar to roddicks that translates well to the hard courts. Surprisingly Matteo does have results on clay so