How many slams would Andy Roddick have won without Federer?

[EloQuent]

Andy Roddick won only one slam, the US Open in 2002. But he made it to 4 other finals, each time losing to Federer, plus an additional 4 times when Federer beat Roddick not in a final. Here’s a breakdown of the 8 times they met in Slams, with my opinions of Roddick’s chances without Fedr.

• Wim03 SF: Roddick dropped only 1 set on his way to the SFs before losing to Fedr in straight sets. Fedr then beat Philippoussis in straight. Roddick would have beat Philippoussis.
• Wim04 F: Fed won in 4 close sets. Without Fed you probably have Grosjean or Lleyton in the final, Roddick wins.
• Wim05 F: Fed wins in straights. Fed beat Hewitt is SF, and Hewitt had been on fire until then, while Roddick had a few tough 4-5 setters. I think Hewitt wins.
• USO 06 F: Fed wins in 4 sets. Roddick probably wins.
• AO 07 SF: Fed crushed Roddick 64 60 62. He then beat Fernando Gonzalez in straights. Hard to say who’d have won a Roddick-Gonzalez final but Roddick has a 9-3 H2H so I’ll give him this one too.
• USO 07 QF: Fedr beat Roddick in straights. Fedr then beats Davydenko in SF and Djokovic in F, both in straights. All three of those players were playing well and it’s hard to predict that Roddick would have made it through both.
• AO 09 SF: Fed beat Roddick in straight but then lost to Nadal in 5 sets. I can’t see Roddick beating Nadal’s best AO showing.
• Wim09 F: Fed wins in a very close 5 setter, 5th set 16-14. Roddick took out Andy Murray in the SF and nobody else looks threatening so I’m giving this to Roddick.

So, to sum up: if not for Fedr Andy Roddick would have won USO twice (03, 06), Wim three time (03, 04, 09), and AO once (07). Total of 6 slams.

What do you think?

 

[NatF]

Andy Roddick won only one slam, the US Open in 2002. But he made it to 4 other finals, each time losing to Federer, plus an additional 4 times when Federer beat Roddick not in a final. Here’s a breakdown of the 8 times they met in Slams, with my opinions of Roddick’s chances without Fedr.

• Wim03 SF: Roddick dropped only 1 set on his way to the SFs before losing to Fedr in straight sets. Fedr then beat Philippoussis in straight. Roddick would have beat Philippoussis.
• Wim04 F: Fed won in 4 close sets. Without Fed you probably have Grosjean or Lleyton in the final, Roddick wins.
• Wim05 F: Fed wins in straights. Fed beat Hewitt is SF, and Hewitt had been on fire until then, while Roddick had a few tough 4-5 setters. I think Hewitt wins.
• USO 06 F: Fed wins in 4 sets. Roddick probably wins.
• AO 07 SF: Fed crushed Roddick 64 60 62. He then beat Fernando Gonzalez in straights. Hard to say who’d have won a Roddick-Gonzalez final but Roddick has a 9-3 H2H so I’ll give him this one too.
• USO 07 QF: Fedr beat Roddick in straights. Fedr then beats Davydenko in SF and Djokovic in F, both in straights. All three of those players were playing well and it’s hard to predict that Roddick would have made it through both.
• AO 09 SF: Fed beat Roddick in straight but then lost to Nadal in 5 sets. I can’t see Roddick beating Nadal’s best AO showing.
• Wim09 F: Fed wins in a very close 5 setter, 5th set 16-14. Roddick took out Andy Murray in the SF and nobody else looks threatening so I’m giving this to Roddick.

So, to sum up: if not for Fedr Andy Roddick would have won USO twice (03, 06), Wim three time (03, 04, 09), and AO once (07). Total of 6 slams.

What do you think?

Probably about right, that would have been an overachievement though imo.

 

[KG1965]

Andy Roddick won only one slam, the US Open in 2002. But he made it to 4 other finals, each time losing to Federer, plus an additional 4 times when Federer beat Roddick not in a final. Here’s a breakdown of the 8 times they met in Slams, with my opinions of Roddick’s chances without Fedr.

• Wim03 SF: Roddick dropped only 1 set on his way to the SFs before losing to Fedr in straight sets. Fedr then beat Philippoussis in straight. Roddick would have beat Philippoussis.
• Wim04 F: Fed won in 4 close sets. Without Fed you probably have Grosjean or Lleyton in the final, Roddick wins.
• Wim05 F: Fed wins in straights. Fed beat Hewitt is SF, and Hewitt had been on fire until then, while Roddick had a few tough 4-5 setters. I think Hewitt wins.
• USO 06 F: Fed wins in 4 sets. Roddick probably wins.
• AO 07 SF: Fed crushed Roddick 64 60 62. He then beat Fernando Gonzalez in straights. Hard to say who’d have won a Roddick-Gonzalez final but Roddick has a 9-3 H2H so I’ll give him this one too.
• USO 07 QF: Fedr beat Roddick in straights. Fedr then beats Davydenko in SF and Djokovic in F, both in straights. All three of those players were playing well and it’s hard to predict that Roddick would have made it through both.
• AO 09 SF: Fed beat Roddick in straight but then lost to Nadal in 5 sets. I can’t see Roddick beating Nadal’s best AO showing.
• Wim09 F: Fed wins in a very close 5 setter, 5th set 16-14. Roddick took out Andy Murray in the SF and nobody else looks threatening so I’m giving this to Roddick.

So, to sum up: if not for Fedr Andy Roddick would have won USO twice (03, 06), Wim three time (03, 04, 09), and AO once (07). Total of 6 slams.

What do you think?

Andy was unlucky and is underestimated.

Many great champions are underestimated but in his case there is a lot of resentment and malice.
He is always mocked in many spaces dedicated to tennis.

I find the situation very disgusting because the man is one of the top 20 OE and certainly HoF.

 

[EloQuent]

Andy was unlucky and is underestimated.

Many great champions are underestimated but in his case there is a lot of resentment and malice.
He is always mocked in many spaces dedicated to tennis.

I find the situation very disgusting because the man is one of the top 20 OE and certainly HoF.

really? I haven't seen that. I've always liked the guy, great sense of humor

 

[boredone3456]

He at the very least would have a Wimbledon. He was arguably the 2nd best on grass after Fed from 03-05. Without Fed he likely wins at least 1 of those 3 tournaments if not more.

Other than that, not sure. Maybe the O6 US Open as well. I'd give him maybe 3 more majors, 2 Wimbledons and a US Open.

Andy was Certainly a great player but he had his share of off days as well, even without Fed I'm not sure if he would have the consistency to really win 5 or more total majors. Max I would say he gets 5 total.

 

[abmk]

He at the very least would have a Wimbledon. He was arguably the 2nd best on grass after Fed from 03-05. Without Fed he likely wins at least 1 of those 3 tournaments if not more.

Other than that, not sure. Maybe the O6 US Open as well. I'd give him maybe 3 more majors, 2 Wimbledons and a US Open.

Andy was Certainly a great player but he had his share of off days as well, even without Fed I'm not sure if he would have the consistency to really win 5 or more total majors. Max I would say he gets 5 total.

no arguably about the grass from 03-05. He was unbeaten on grass from 2003-05 apart from federer.
32-3 on grass - all 3 losses to federer.
went SF, F, F at wimbledon.
gave federer his toughest match at Wimbledon in that time period in 04 wim final
won all 3 queens titles
beat ancic, agassi, hewitt, karlovic, grosjean, schalken,rusedski -- basically everyone else who was good/threat on grass.

 

[boredone3456]

no arguably about the grass from 03-05. He was unbeaten on grass from 2003-05 apart from federer.
32-3 on grass - all 3 losses to federer.
went SF, F, F at wimbledon.
gave federer his toughest match at Wimbledon in that time period in 04 wim final
won all 3 queens titles
beat ancic, agassi, hewitt, karlovic, grosjean, schalken,rusedski -- basically everyone else who was good/threat on grass.

For some reason I thought he had another loss or 2 in that time besides the Fed ones. So yes, best on Grass after Fed those 3 years. Really not anyone I could see stopping him except himself and maybe a really strong Hewitt performance in 04/05 (he was 1-6 against Hewitt overall through Wimbledon 2005). Long as Andy didn't get in his own way he certainly would have a Wimbledon or 2 with no Federer around to stop him.

 

[abmk]

For some reason I thought he had another loss or 2 in that time besides the Fed ones. So yes, best on Grass after Fed those 3 years. Really not anyone I could see stopping him except himself and maybe a really strong Hewitt performance in 04/05. Long as Andy didn't get in his own way he certainly would have a Wimbledon or 2 with no Federer around to stop him.

agreed for most part.
I see Roddick being favored in 2004 wim vs Hewitt and the other way around in 05.
Scud would also have a decent shot in 2003 Wim final.

 

[EloQuent]

no arguably about the grass from 03-05. He was unbeaten on grass from 2003-05 apart from federer.
32-3 on grass - all 3 losses to federer.
went SF, F, F at wimbledon.
gave federer his toughest match at Wimbledon in that time period in 04 wim final
won all 3 queens titles
beat ancic, agassi, hewitt, karlovic, grosjean, schalken,rusedski -- basically everyone else who was good/threat on grass.

strong argument!

if we give him a total of 7 does that make him an ATG?

 

[abmk]

strong argument!

if we give him a total of 7 does that make him an ATG?

doesn't work that way.

I do think Roddick would've won 2-3 slams in other eras (4 if he got real lucky)

 

[EloQuent]

doesn't work that way.

I do think Roddick would've won 2-3 slams in other eras (4 if he got real lucky)

this is all hypothetical, at the end of the day his record needs to stand on his achievements

 

[abmk]

As far as thread goes, yeah, I know the Roddick-Gonzalez h2h, but I'd favour Gonzalez in that final tbh, given Gonzalez's form.
The QF and SF were just brutal performances, the semi even more so. 40+ winners to 3 (official)/5(my count) UEs , jeez !

Other ones, agree. favored over Scud in Wim 03, over Hewitt in 04 Wim, not so Hewitt in 05 Wim, favored in USO 06 over blake, favored in Wim 09 over Haas.

 

[boredone3456]

agreed for most part.
I see Roddick being favored in 2004 wim vs Hewitt and the other way around in 05.
Scud would also have a decent shot in 2003 Wim final.

Without Fed, redo the draws, 03-05 Wimbledon may well end up the Hewitt vs Roddick Show. That Karlovic bouncing was a stunner, without Fed draw may end up different and Hewitt doesn't get him Rd1. Hewitt overall owned the H2H that entire time period but I don't see Andy not winning at least once in those 3 years. Other than Hewitt, there really wasn't anyone else that was a threat those years. Certainly some other good grass court players, but none at that level.

 

[abmk]

Without Fed, redo the draws, 03-05 Wimbledon may well end up the Hewitt vs Roddick Show. That Karlovic bouncing was a stunner, without Fed draw may end up different and Hewitt doesn't get him Rd1. Hewitt overall owned the H2H that entire time period but I don't see Andy not winning at least once in those 3 years. Other than Hewitt, there really wasn't anyone else that was a threat those years. Certainly some other good grass court players, but none at that level.

I assumed a weak player/non-threat in place of federer.
hewitt won all their 3 matches in 01.
but it was 3-2 hewitt from 2004-05, with Roddick winning their only grass match in Queens 04.

did not meet in 02 or 03.

Scud in 03, Ancic in 04 were certainly playing well enough. Even Johansson's stats in Wim 05 were pretty good (courtesy @NatF ). didn't watch too much of him though.

Grosjean wasn't a pushover either.
He did beat Hewitt at Queen's club in 03 in the QF and Roddick beat him in the final.

 

[boredone3456]

I assumed a weak player/non-threat in place of federer.
hewitt won all their 3 matches in 01.
but it was 3-2 hewitt from 2004-05, with Roddick winning their only grass match in Queens 04.

did not meet in 02 or 03.

Scud in 03, Ancic in 04 were certainly playing well enough. Even Johansson's stats in Wim 05 were pretty good (courtesy @NatF ). didn't watch too much of him though.

Ancic was always an Enigma. Guy had some serious grass game though, and I give him massive respect. Not sure he could have gone all the way but he was a guy you never wanted to see anywhere near you at Wimbledon.

Johansson definitely is a dark horse for 2005. He took Andy to 3 tiebreaks and managed to win 1 of them, that alone says a lot. A few points here or there he actually wins that match to get to the final. I didn't really see any of his play that year but it appears he was playing well looking at his scorelines through his draws.

I'd definitely agree with your assessment overall. I just question how Andy would handle being the "favorite" 3 years in a row going into the tournament. Might have changed his whole outlook on tennis in the years to come, and if he succeeded certainly really upped his confidence.

 

[KG1965]

Andy Roddick won only one slam, the US Open in 2002. But he made it to 4 other finals, each time losing to Federer, plus an additional 4 times when Federer beat Roddick not in a final. Here’s a breakdown of the 8 times they met in Slams, with my opinions of Roddick’s chances without Fedr.

• Wim03 SF: Roddick dropped only 1 set on his way to the SFs before losing to Fedr in straight sets. Fedr then beat Philippoussis in straight. Roddick would have beat Philippoussis.
• Wim04 F: Fed won in 4 close sets. Without Fed you probably have Grosjean or Lleyton in the final, Roddick wins.
• Wim05 F: Fed wins in straights. Fed beat Hewitt is SF, and Hewitt had been on fire until then, while Roddick had a few tough 4-5 setters. I think Hewitt wins.
• USO 06 F: Fed wins in 4 sets. Roddick probably wins.
• AO 07 SF: Fed crushed Roddick 64 60 62. He then beat Fernando Gonzalez in straights. Hard to say who’d have won a Roddick-Gonzalez final but Roddick has a 9-3 H2H so I’ll give him this one too.
• USO 07 QF: Fedr beat Roddick in straights. Fedr then beats Davydenko in SF and Djokovic in F, both in straights. All three of those players were playing well and it’s hard to predict that Roddick would have made it through both.
• AO 09 SF: Fed beat Roddick in straight but then lost to Nadal in 5 sets. I can’t see Roddick beating Nadal’s best AO showing.
• Wim09 F: Fed wins in a very close 5 setter, 5th set 16-14. Roddick took out Andy Murray in the SF and nobody else looks threatening so I’m giving this to Roddick.

So, to sum up: if not for Fedr Andy Roddick would have won USO twice (03, 06), Wim three time (03, 04, 09), and AO once (07). Total of 6 slams.

What do you think?

Murray is > Roddick ? Yes... but is greater and stronger ?

 

[EloQuent]

Murray is > Roddick ? Yes... but is greater and stronger ?

I'm not sure if you're commenting on Wim09 or just in general comparing them.

re Wim09: Murray was the 3rd seed, I mentioned that Roddick beat him to give a sense of Roddick's form.

overall: Murray also lost to Federer, so in the alternative universe without Federer, he probably ends up with a more impressive career anyway

 

[KG1965]

I'm not sure if you're commenting on Wim09 or just in general comparing them.

re Wim09: Murray was the 3rd seed, I mentioned that Roddick beat him to give a sense of Roddick's form.

overall: Murray also lost to Federer, so in the alternative universe without Federer, he probably ends up with a more impressive career anyway

My comment was not clear but I wanted to split the question into 3:
1) Murray won more;
2) Murray was greater, probably;
3) but who gave the impression of being stronger?

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

Roddick's career now looks like this.

Australian Open: 2007
Wimbledon: 2003-2004, 2009
US Open: 2006

 

[laCosta]

God, seeing how many times Federer beat Roddick really makes me feel bad for him.

 

[Aitkers]

Roddick's career now looks like this.

Australian Open: 2007
Wimbledon: 2003-2004, 2009
US Open: 2006

Not bad. Not bad at all

 

[Prabhanjan]

Is it that easy to give Roddick 6 slams? The argument that he lost to Federer 8 times and Fed was 7 times the champion in such matches does not frankly cut much ice with me. Except the Wimbledon 09, which he deserved to win of course, he did not take Fed to the 5th set, ever. Why? Let's look at whom he lost to during 2004-08 when he did not lose to Federer, chunking FO of course , :
AO: Safin in 04, Hewitt in 05, Baghdatis in 06, and Kohlschreiber in 08
Wimbledon: Murray in 06 (in straights), Gasquet in 07 (in five), and Tipsarević in 08
USO: Johansson in 04 (in five), Muller in 05 (first round), Djokovic in 08.

So, though Roddick lost to greedy Federer five times between 2004-08, he has lost 10 times to non-greedy non-Federer's. At most Roddick adds two more slams and no more. Same about Murray too, he is not adding more than a slam or two at best if not for the Big 3. A nemesis removed in field is not a win assured. Roddick attributed his deep Wimbledon run in 2009 to the great Fed-Nadal 2008 finals. He came short, agonizingly sort. For the hypotheticals he is supposed to win, there is also that great hypothetical of his losing the only slam he won too. Many still vouch how Nalbandian had been screwed in the semi's and that if Ferrero had not taken out Agassi, Roddick easily loses the only slam won to the great baldie.

• Wim03 SF: Roddick dropped only 1 set on his way to the SFs before losing to Fedr in straight sets. Fedr then beat Philippoussis in straight. Roddick would have beat Philippoussis.
• From what I recollect of the semi and finals, Roddick was way more outplayed by Fed than Philippoussis. This is at most 50-50. Nothing suggests Roddick as a lock here.
• Wim04 F: Fed won in 4 close sets. Without Fed you probably have Grosjean or Lleyton in the final, Roddick wins.
• Not really sure how and why Roddick will win this one against Hewitt. Untill 2006, Hewitt was 6-1 on Roddick, and the reverse after that year.
• Wim05 F: Fed wins in straights. Fed beat Hewitt is SF, and Hewitt had been on fire until then, while Roddick had a few tough 4-5 setters. I think Hewitt wins.
• I too believe that Roddick gets one between 2003-05.
• USO 06 F: Fed wins in 4 sets. Roddick probably wins.
• Probably is fine, say Roddick gets 0.4 slams here.
• AO 07 SF: Fed crushed Roddick 64 60 62. He then beat Fernando Gonzalez in straights. Hard to say who’d have won a Roddick-Gonzalez final but Roddick has a 9-3 H2H so I’ll give him this one too.
• Gonzalez, as before Baghdatis and so many other red-hot players, played Fed so much better that Roddick himself did. Besides, Gonzalez run to the final was as hot as any of the Roddick's run to the final. I won't give more 0.2 slams to Roddick in this case.
• USO 07 QF: Fedr beat Roddick in straights. Fedr then beats Davydenko in SF and Djokovic in F, both in straights. All three of those players were playing well and it’s hard to predict that Roddick would have made it through both.
• A Qf run is barely any indication of deep run. No chance for Rod here.
• AO 09 SF: Fed beat Roddick in straight but then lost to Nadal in 5 sets. I can’t see Roddick beating Nadal’s best AO showing.
• Agree.
• Wim09 F: Fed wins in a very close 5 setter, 5th set 16-14. Roddick took out Andy Murray in the SF and nobody else looks threatening so I’m giving this to Roddick.
• Agree. And then here is my another big problem. If Rod had sneaked an Wimbledon earlier, he might never have put as much effort to make this deep run. So, if I give him this one, I am taking one of the earlier out.

So, to sum up: if not for Fedr Andy Roddick would have won USO twice (03, 06), Wim three time (03, 04, 09), and AO once (07). Total of 6 slams.

What do you think?

So, no way Roddick gets more than 2 slams, even the most optimistic would be 3 slams. 6 slams is too much of an aggregation for Roddick.

 

[Thomas195]

Is it that easy to give Roddick 6 slams? The argument that he lost to Federer 8 times and Fed was 7 times the champion in such matches does not frankly cut much ice with me. Except the Wimbledon 09, which he deserved to win of course, he did not take Fed to the 5th set, ever. Why? Let's look at whom he lost to during 2004-08 when he did not lose to Federer, chunking FO of course , :
AO: Safin in 04, Hewitt in 05, Baghdatis in 06, and Kohlschreiber in 08
Wimbledon: Murray in 06 (in straights), Gasquet in 07 (in five), and Tipsarević in 08
USO: Johansson in 04 (in five), Muller in 05 (first round), Djokovic in 08.

So, though Roddick lost to greedy Federer five times between 2004-08, he has lost 10 times to non-greedy non-Federer's. At most Roddick adds two more slams and no more. Same about Murray too, he is not adding more than a slam or two at best if not for the Big 3. A nemesis removed in field is not a win assured. Roddick attributed his deep Wimbledon run in 2009 to the great Fed-Nadal 2008 finals. He came short, agonizingly sort. For the hypotheticals he is supposed to win, there is also that great hypothetical of his losing the only slam he won too. Many still vouch how Nalbandian had been screwed in the semi's and that if Ferrero had not taken out Agassi, Roddick easily loses the only slam won to the great baldie.




So, no way Roddick gets more than 2 slams, even the most optimistic would be 3 slams. 6 slams is too much of an aggregation for Roddick.

Most Roddick supporters never notice that Phillippoussis served much better than Roddick in 2003W, and Roddick was no where near Federer in return.

 

[B-Line]

Whenever i think of Federer V Roddick it always reminds me of their first Wimbledon encounter in 2003.

Total Masterclass by Federer.

I saw him in the flesh beating Mardy Fish on route to his first title.

 

[abmk]

Most Roddick supporters never notice that Phillippoussis served much better than Roddick in 2003W, and Roddick was no where near Federer in return.

No, Scud didn't serve much better.
Roddick was only broken 3 times before the semi vs Federer.
Ended up with a slightly higher hold % than Scud for that Wim (mainly thanks to Scud facing Agassi in 4R though). (93.6% for Roddick to 92% for Scud)

Scud did serve clearly better in the final than Roddick did in the semi, that's it. Even then he should've broken the same # of times, 3 times. Fed just missed a sitter of a FH on BP in the 3rd set -- a rare miss for him in the SF/F.