How strong was 2004 Roddick relative to the Sampras era?

[Heuristic]

This was the year Roddick was in his prime IMO. I would possibly add the summer of 2003 when he won the US Open. Let's start with some raw stats from 2004

Win/loss record 74-18.

Year end aces: 1,017 (best). Karlovic had more aces per matches but also much weaker opponents.

Service games won (all surfaces included): 91.80% (third) ahead of Karlovic, behind Federer and Joachim Johansson.

First serve points won (all Surfaces): 80.53% (second behind Karlovic).

Won 4 titles, biggest being Miami.

Roddick started the year number 1 and reached the quarterfinals of the Australian open losing a five setter to eventual finalist Marat Safin. An epic match that could have gone either way. Roddick also had that famous Wimbledon final against Federer in which Federer said he could only block the shots back in the first set and was saved by the reign delay. Roddick was still up a break in the third and plenty of other chances in the match to make it into a five setter. Unlike the 09 final, Federer did not play poorly in that match and Roddick still steam-rolled him the first set.

Roddick later lost in the US open to Joachim Johansson in a windy and rather caotic match. Both served up a storm but Roddick did not want to hit his forehand flat in the windy conditions and relied too much on Joachim to hit and miss. I also get the impression that Roddick was intimidated by Joachims aggression and the pressure of defending the titel. Very uncharacteristic play from Roddick that night from the baseline.

I say 2004 Roddick, and possibly summer 2003, could beat prime Sampras at least once in 10 matches, including at Wimbledon. Roger Federer is a far superior and versatile player to Sampras, and 04-Roddick was able to dominate Federer from the baseline with the "old" Roddick forehand. Yes, Federer was not yet at his prime but still, even prime Federer would have had problems.

What say you guys?

 

[IowaGuy]

I say 2004 Roddick, and possibly summer 2003, could beat prime Sampras at least once in 10 matches, including at Wimbledon.

Well, Roddick beat Federer 1 in 8 matches, so 1 in 10 matches with Sampras seems like a given.

Roddick against prime Sampras (in that era of fast courts) would probably be a serve-fest like Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 Wimbledon.

 

[Heuristic]

Well, Roddick beat Federer 1 in 8 matches, so 1 in 10 matches with Sampras seems like a given.

Roddick against prime Sampras (in that era of fast courts) would probably be a serve-fest like Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 Wimbledon.

I am not sure it is a given. Winning against the two of them in a slam is different. Roddick had a tendency to choke in the big matches. The 2003 US Open was the exception. The Australian open 2005 was a golden opportunity for Roddick. Federer was eliminated by Safin. Roddick was facing a Hewitt who was in pains and had been out on the court twice the amount. Ended up with Roddick taking the first set as expected. The rest of the match was a tragedy to tennis fans. The worst part was Roddick double faulting away the set (he was up a break).

I think the majority would have prefered a Roddick-Safin final and Roddicks chances would have been at least 50%. Safin was an okey opponent for Roddick historically.

 

[Heuristic]

Roddick against prime Sampras (in that era of fast courts) would probably be a serve-fest like Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 Wimbledon.

Were the courts really that much faster back then? I know some people argue that the US Open courts at some point were faster than Wimbledon(around 2005-2006). Add to that Wimbledon having heavier balls which makes the play slower.

 

[IowaGuy]

Were the courts really that much faster back then? I know some people argue that the US Open courts at some point were faster than Wimbledon(around 2005-2006). Add to that Wimbledon having heavier balls which makes the play slower.

Have you ever watched any of the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches from the 90's?

Sampras was around 90% of 1st serve points won against Goran. i.e. if he got it in, point was basically over!

 

[Heuristic]

Have you ever watched any of the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches from the 90's?

Sampras was around 90% of 1st serve points won against Goran. i.e. if he got it in, point was basically over!

Goran was not a great returner, was he? And Agassi, the main rival, was too short to reach angled serves (had to make guesses). Agassi was terrrific once he got the hands on the ball, though. Roddick, Johansson, Karlovic aced Agassi pretty good.

 

[IowaGuy]

Goran was not a great returner, was he? And Agassi, the main rival, was too short to reach angled serves (had to make guesses).

Goran - not good returner (not in top 200 of % return games won). But, he's at #13 all-time for service games won. Usually just needed a break to win the set. For example, he beat Becker in 1994 Wimbledon SF without being broken (only 1 break point all match!). Goran was more athletic than you might think, he had great hands at net for a tall guy!

Agassi not that short, just couple inches shorter than Sampras. Agassi could reach angles well, since he stood so far forward in the court (cut off some of the angles that way). He would often return a Sampras serve with his toes on the baseline, and a Sampras 2nd serve standing inside the baseline! I don't know any other returner that stood so far forward in the court against Sampras...

Karlovic and Roddick aced everyone pretty good! (#1 and #4 all-time for % service games won).

 

[Heuristic]

Roddicks best surface according to himself was hardcourt. If he kept the forehand technique that made him nr 1 (but also made more errors with), how many slams would he have won in the Sampras generation? That's what I want to discuss. I have Roddick at 5 hardcourt slams at the very least against that generation.

Federer believes Roddick would have won quite a bit if he (Fed) wasn't around. I have not heard him speak of Roddick vs the Sampras generation specifically, though.

Roddick has beaten Sampras in an ATP event, but it was not a slam and Sampras was over the hill. Neither one was close to prime.

 

[abmk]

Roddick would be something like 3-7 (or at worst 2-8) vs Sampras in 10 matches if you ask me.

 

[IowaGuy]

how many slams would he have won in the Sampras generation? That's what I want to discuss. I have Roddick at 5 hardcourt slams at the very least against that generation.

Roddick lucky to get 1 slam in Sampras generation. Whereas in early Fed generation Roddick just basically had to get past Fed to win a major (plus maybe a Hewitt or Nalbandian, etc), in Sampras generation you had:

Sampras (14 slams)
Agassi (8 slams)
Lendl (8 slams)
Edberg (6 slams)
Becker (6 slams)
Courier (4 slams)
Plus other hard-court specialists such as Ivanisevic, Martin, Phillippoussis, Rafter, Stich, etc. (depeding if early Sampras era or late Sampras era)

In some tournaments, the top 10 seeds were all GS champions! For example, check out the top 16 seeds in the 1996 U.S. Open:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Roddick would have faced stiff competition starting in the round of 16 in most tournaments in Sampras' era, and would have to routinely beat 3 or 4 very tough, hard-court specialists.

How many tournaments do you think he could beat the likes of Rafter, Edberg, Agassi, and Sampras, all in the same tournament?

 

[abmk]

I am not sure it is a given. Winning against the two of them in a slam is different. Roddick had a tendency to choke in the big matches. The 2003 US Open was the exception. The Australian open 2005 was a golden opportunity for Roddick. Federer was eliminated by Safin. Roddick was facing a Hewitt who was in pains and had been out on the court twice the amount. Ended up with Roddick taking the first set as expected. The rest of the match was a tragedy to tennis fans. The worst part was Roddick double faulting away the set (he was up a break).

I think the majority would have prefered a Roddick-Safin final and Roddicks chances would have been at least 50%. Safin was an okey opponent for Roddick historically.

pretty sure majority of the Aussie fans wanted Hewitt in the final, not Roddick.
Hewitt was mentally stronger than Roddick, doesn't mean Roddick was mentally weak in big matches.. Especially when comparision is to Ivanisevic.

Roddick won the El Aynaoui classic in AO 03 , having come from 2 sets to love down vs Youzhny in the previous round.
Won the 5-setter vs Hewitt in Wim 09, was clutch vs Murray, taking it in 4 sets vs fed. Even Wim 09, he was mentally pretty strong, apart from that missed volley in the 2nd set. He didn't let him deter him in the 3rd set. Saved 6/7 BPs. Held so many times in the 5th set before he was finally broken in the match.
Held on mentally vs Gonzalez in AO 10 when Gonzalez was over-powering him initially.

etc.

Had a ~62% win rate in TBs as well.

yeah, there are matches where he's gone down, but he wasn't mentally weak in general by any means.

 

[Heuristic]

How many tournaments do you think he could beat the likes of Rafter, Edberg, Agassi, and Sampras, all in the same tournament?

Well, I wrote 5 hardcourt slams and that's what I am sticking to. Do you remember prime Roddick? He stood three feet behind the baseline and fired forehand winners. His inside-out forehand was possibly the greatest of all time, and that's not being hyperbolic. Add to that his serve and yeah, I can envision him beating those guys in one tournament. When it comes to overall forehands, Federers had the more consistent shot of course.

The only question mark is the mental aspect, where I feel Roddick never had the true masters nerves. He choked.

 

[abmk]

Roddick lucky to get 1 slam in Sampras generation. Whereas in early Fed generation Roddick just basically had to get past Fed to win a major (plus maybe a Hewitt or Nalbandian, etc), in Sampras generation you had:

Sampras (14 slams)
Agassi (8 slams)
Lendl (8 slams)
Edberg (6 slams)
Becker (6 slams)
Courier (4 slams)
Plus other hard-court specialists such as Ivanisevic, Martin, Phillippoussis, Rafter, Stich, etc. (depeding if early Sampras era or late Sampras era)

In some tournaments, the top 10 seeds were all GS champions! For example, check out the top 16 seeds in the 1996 U.S. Open:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Roddick would have faced stiff competition starting in the round of 16 in most tournaments in Sampras' era, and would have to routinely beat 3 or 4 very tough, hard-court specialists.

How many tournaments do you think he could beat the likes of Rafter, Edberg, Agassi, and Sampras, all in the same tournament?

Ivanisevic a HC specialist ? really ? ever checked his HC record ? here's a hint : a grand total of 1 HC slam semi.
Roddick was clearly better than Martin,Scud, Stich on HC also. I'd say better than Rafter as well.

Lendl was not really a part of Sampras prime (93 onwards).
Agassi was MIA for large parts of 93, 97. in poor form by his standards in 96, didn't do well in slams in 98.
Edberg was almost done after 93.
In HC slams, from 92-96, (10 of them), Becker got past the QFs only twice - USO 95 and AO 96. Either under-performed or was absent in the others.

 

[NatF]

Roddick lucky to get 1 slam in Sampras generation. Whereas in early Fed generation Roddick just basically had to get past Fed to win a major (plus maybe a Hewitt or Nalbandian, etc), in Sampras generation you had:

Sampras (14 slams)
Agassi (8 slams)
Lendl (8 slams)
Edberg (6 slams)
Becker (6 slams)
Courier (4 slams)
Plus other hard-court specialists such as Ivanisevic, Martin, Phillippoussis, Rafter, Stich, etc. (depeding if early Sampras era or late Sampras era)

In some tournaments, the top 10 seeds were all GS champions! For example, check out the top 16 seeds in the 1996 U.S. Open:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_US_Open_–_Men's_Singles

Roddick would have faced stiff competition starting in the round of 16 in most tournaments in Sampras' era, and would have to routinely beat 3 or 4 very tough, hard-court specialists.

How many tournaments do you think he could beat the likes of Rafter, Edberg, Agassi, and Sampras, all in the same tournament?

This is just blatantly false in so many ways. See abmk's post.

Roddick would struggle in the early 90's but would have many chances in the later 90's.

 

[Heuristic]

pretty sure majority of the Aussie fans wanted Hewitt in the final, not Roddick.
Hewitt was mentally stronger than Roddick, doesn't mean Roddick was mentally weak in big matches.. Especially when comparision is to Ivanisevic.

Roddick won the El Aynaoui classic in AO 03 , having come from 2 sets to love down vs Youzhny in the previous round.
Won the 5-setter vs Hewitt in Wim 09, was clutch vs Murray, taking it in 4 sets vs fed. Even Wim 09, he was mentally pretty strong, apart from that missed volley in the 2nd set. He didn't let him deter him in the 3rd set. Saved 6/7 BPs. Held so many times in the 5th set before he was finally broken in the match.
Held on mentally vs Gonzalez in AO 10 when Gonzalez was over-powering him initially.

etc.

Had a ~62% win rate in TBs as well.

yeah, there are matches where he's gone down, but he wasn't mentally weak in general by any means.

But most of those matches are either A) not semifinals or finals B) a mature Roddick with a more consistent game but lacking the big forehand. How many times did Roddick drive Federer around on the court after 2004 with the forehand? Never.. And this was a conscious decision to play the percentages better.

 

[IowaGuy]

He stood three feet behind the baseline and fired forehand winners. His inside-out forehand was possibly the greatest of all time, and that's not being hyperbolic. Add to that his serve and yeah, I can envision him beating those guys in one tournament.

Roddick's only real weapon was his serve.

#4 all-time on % service games won
not even in top 200 for % return games won.

i.e. his baseline and return game sub-par compared to other ATP pros.

i.e. basically another Ivanisevic or Karlovic.

 

[abmk]

Roddick's only real weapon was his serve.

#4 all-time on % service games won
not even in top 200 for % return games won.

i.e. his baseline and return game sub-par compared to other ATP pros.

i.e. basically another Ivanisevic or Karlovic.

ok, you are completely ignorant/clueless.

 

[abmk]

Well, I wrote 5 hardcourt slams and that's what I am sticking to. Do you remember prime Roddick? He stood three feet behind the baseline and fired forehand winners. His inside-out forehand was possibly the greatest of all time, and that's not being hyperbolic. Add to that his serve and yeah, I can envision him beating those guys in one tournament. When it comes to overall forehands, Federers had the more consistent shot of course.

The only question mark is the mental aspect, where I feel Roddick never had the true masters nerves. He choked.

that wasn't my post that you quoted, but I'll address it anyways. Roddick's I/O FH at his peak was very good, but I'd take the I/O FHs of fed/lendl/courier atleast over his for sure.

 

[IowaGuy]

Roddick was clearly better than Martin,Scud, Stich on HC also. I'd say better than Rafter as well.

Stich > Sampras head-to-head! (5-4)
Krajecek > Sampras head-to-head! (6-4)

I don't see Roddick dominating those guys if Sampras can't! If you do, then please explain your reasoning...

 

[Heuristic]

Roddick's only real weapon was his serve.
.

Roddicks forehand was equal to the serve before he revamped his style (which he did after aussie open 2005. I can prove that you:

 

[IowaGuy]

Roddicks forehand was equal to the serve before he revamped his style (which he did after aussie open 2005. I can prove that you:

If Roddick FH and baseline game so good (hits winners standing 3 feet behind baseline!), then why doesn't he make the list of top 200 % return games won?

He's another servebot.

Even big servers like Becker, Sampras, Cilic, Martin make the top 200 % return game list. i.e. they had better groundstrokes than Roddick!

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won

 

[abmk]

Stich > Sampras head-to-head! (5-4)
Krajecek > Sampras head-to-head! (6-4)

I don't see Roddick dominating those guys if Sampras can't! If you do, then please explain your reasoning...

majority of their matches were on indoor hard/carpet ...not the conditions for HC slams.
also Krajicek and Stich were tough matchups for Sampras.
More importantly Krajicek/Stich were pretty inconsistent (more about injuries for Krajicek and motivation for Stich)

 

[Heuristic]

If Roddick FH and baseline game so good (hits winners standing 3 feet behind baseline!), then why doesn't he make the list of top 200 % return games won?

Because Roddick was a poor returner/mover on the court. When prime Roddick had time to run around the forehand, it was a monster. IMO best inside-out forehand of all time, concidering how far back he was standing and they weren't even close to getting it back.

 

[abmk]

If Roddick FH and baseline game so good (hits winners standing 3 feet behind baseline!), then why doesn't he make the list of top 200 % return games won?

He's another servebot.

Even big servers like Becker, Sampras, Cilic, Martin make the top 200 % return game list. i.e. they had better groundstrokes than Roddick!

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won

Roddick is at 20.3%, just barely below those guys.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4053

Pretty sure he's faced tougher competition than many of those guys, which brings his return stats down.

He wasn't a great returner by any means, but nowhere near as poor as you think.
Equating him to Karlovic/Isner is outright dumbness.

 

[Heuristic]

that wasn't my post that you quoted, but I'll address it anyways. Roddick's I/O FH at his peak was very good, but I'd take the I/O FHs of fed/lendl/courier atleast over his for sure.

Prime Roddick forehand overall is easily a top 10 forehand anyway. Fed is above, as is Nadal (for different reasons), and a couple of others. Serve is arguably a top 4 shot. So Roddick has two all-time great strokes to rely on. Safin praised the roddick forehand just as much as the serve prior to their australian open 2004 Qf. It wasn't even argued back then.

 

[IowaGuy]

Pretty sure he's faced tougher competition than many of those guys, which brings his return stats down.

I would argue that Sampras era faced deeper competition than Roddick's time. i.e. top 20 were more dangerous. That would actually bring Sampras' era stats down. We might have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[IowaGuy]

Another variable - Roddick's career was relatively short, compared to modern guys. (retired at 30, actually younger than Federer even though hasn't played since 2012!)

So, he would have only had maybe 6 or 7 good years in the 1990's to compete. I don't think he wins 5 GS in 7 years, whether in the early 1990's (Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Courier, Stich, Lendl, Becker) or the late 1990's (Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Martin, Pillipp).

Remember, we're basically saying that he doesn't win Wimbledon or FO in 1990's.

So, 5 GS in 7 years = 14 tournaments (USO, AO). That's a tall order against that competition!!!

 

[Heuristic]

I would argue that Sampras era faced deeper competition than Roddick's time. i.e. top 20 were more dangerous. That would actually bring Sampras' era stats down. We might have to agree to disagree on this one

Sampras forehand is weaker than young Roddick and yet he won 14 slams. The running forehand was the only shot Sampras did better. Sampras backhand hardly makes any all-time great lists either. So if that's enough to win 14 slams in the 90s, Roddick will surely win some too.

I would agree though that Roddicks weakest link is weaker than Sampras.

 

[abmk]

I would argue that Sampras era faced deeper competition than Roddick's time. i.e. top 20 were more dangerous. That would actually bring Sampras' era stats down. We might have to agree to disagree on this one

I was talking about guys like Starace, Giraldo, Gambill etc. who went deeper much lesser than Roddick did and are there in the 200 list that you are talking about.

then there are CCers like montanes, falla etc.

 

[abmk]

Prime Roddick forehand overall is easily a top 10 forehand anyway. Fed is above, as is Nadal (for different reasons), and a couple of others. Serve is arguably a top 4 shot. So Roddick has two all-time great strokes to rely on. Safin praised the roddick forehand just as much as the serve prior to their australian open 2004 Qf. It wasn't even argued back then.

in the open era, I'd say its in the top 15, not sure about top 10. But yeah, point remains that his fh at his peak was an excellent weapon.

 

[IowaGuy]

Sampras forehand is weaker than young Roddick and yet he won 14 slams.

This is true, but remember that Sampras net game >> Roddick net game. Sampras would come to net while returning (chip & charge, slice approach, etc) as well as S&V. So, Sampras had one more weapon that Roddick didn't.

Plus, Sampras mental toughness >> Roddick.

 

[Heuristic]

This is true, but remember that Sampras net game >> Roddick net game. Sampras would come to net while returning (chip & charge, slice approach, etc) as well as S&V. So, Sampras had one more weapon that Roddick didn't.

Plus, Sampras mental toughness >> Roddick.

Oh yes, Sampras is definately the greater player. But Sampras had bad periods whuch guys like Roddick could capitalize. Roger Federer won 6-0.7-6-6-0 against Lleyton Hewitt. Hewitt made easy work of Sampras in 2001. If Federers game was on, he was impossible. Roddick also didn't have to worry about the return game as much. Sampras return game was such and such. Federer was a top 2 returner at his peak. This was the worst possible match-up for Roddick.

 

[Heuristic]

To give some perspective how lethal prime Roddick was; Juan Carlos Ferrero was the 5th greatest first serve return points won in 2003, Hardcourts, and 5th on all surfaces. Even though these stats don't tell the hole tell (they count all points won, not just by returns) they tell us some information how well they tend to do returning the serve, since it's less likely to win points with weak returns.

In the US Open final between them, Roddick won 89% first serve (49/55), 59% second serve (19/32), fired 23 aces, in 1 hour and 41 minutes. Ferrero later said that he still remember how unbelievable Roddick served that night.

 

[IowaGuy]

O Roddick also didn't have to worry about the return game as much. Sampras return game was such and such.

Statistically, Sampras was actually a better returner than Roddick.

Sampras: 24.1% of return games won
Roddick: 20.3%

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=1948

 

[IowaGuy]

Roger Federer won 6-0.7-6-6-0 against Lleyton Hewitt. Hewitt made easy work of Sampras in 2001.

Hewitt got his fair share against Fed. 9-18 lifetime head-to-head (about as good as anyone else besides Joker/Nadal).

Hewitt, of course, was catching Sampras towards the end of his dominance, certainly 2001 was not peak Sampras!

 

[Aitkers]

Well, Roddick beat Federer 1 in 8 matches, so 1 in 10 matches with Sampras seems like a given.

Roddick against prime Sampras (in that era of fast courts) would probably be a serve-fest like Sampras-Ivanisevic 1994 Wimbledon.

Given is a bit far but yeah id think hed beat him on occasion

 

[Heuristic]

Statistically, Sampras was actually a better returner than Roddick.

Sampras: 24.1% of return games won
Roddick: 20.3%

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerPro
file?playerId=1948

We are discussing Roddick in his prime. Prime Roddick had 31.94% first serve return points won, 2003, hardcourts. It dropped slightly in 2004 to 29.19%.

When Roddicks game was on, the return game was not in question.

 

[Heuristic]

Hewitt got his fair share against Fed. 9-18 lifetime head-to-head (about as good as anyone else besides Joker/Nadal).

But those were never during Feds prime. Federer had a bad temperament and weaker backhand that people could actually attack and win points off, something only Nadal was able to do against prime Federer due to the top spin.

 

[Heuristic]

Federer won 15 (!) matches in a row against Hewitt after 2003. And almost none of them were competitive. Hewitt won a total of 4 sets in that 15 streak.

 

[abmk]

Sampras was a fine returner at his peak, clearly better than Roddick.

 

[Heuristic]

Sampras was a fine returner at his peak, clearly better than Roddick.

Still not even close to Federer, and that was the only opponent Roddicks serve didn't bite on. I don't think the return game between the two of them in their prime would have been the deciding factor. Roddick got back Safins first serves routinely in Aussie open 2004, so when he read them correctly he did not return poorly. Safin served harder than Sampras, but not as disguised.

 

[Heuristic]

Let's compare the serves.

Prime Roddick serve - 8.5/10. + Outstanding speed, variety, spin, Very strong second serve.

- Did not go for the lines as much as he could.

- Tendency to stick to big body serves against Fed despite mixed results. Should hedge his bets and go for the lines more often. Had a strong second serve anyway.

Prime Sampras

Serve 8.5/10. + Disguise, speed, placement, strong second serve .

- Double faulted too much.

- Not as fast as Roddicks.

 

[Gary Duane]

Roddick is at 20.3%, just barely below those guys.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4053

Pretty sure he's faced tougher competition than many of those guys, which brings his return stats down.

He wasn't a great returner by any means, but nowhere near as poor as you think.
Equating him to Karlovic/Isner is outright dumbness.

Roddick is not unusual for great servers on fast surfaces. Lots of guys like him aren't on that 200 list because of return stats falling later in their careers.

 

[Heuristic]

So what did our peak A-Rod win besides the US Open? Well in 2004, which was the Federer era, Roddick won the biggest non slam tournament on the tour - Miami. Federer lost to Nadal in that tournament, their first match ever. Miami hardcourts are some of the slowest in the world, so people claiming peak Roddick only relied on his serve are wrong.

 

[IowaGuy]

So what did our peak A-Rod win besides the US Open? Well in 2004, which was the Federer era, Roddick won the biggest non slam tournament on the tour - Miami. Federer lost to Nadal in that tournament, their first match ever. Miami hardcourts are some of the slowest in the world, so people claiming peak Roddick only relied on his serve are wrong.

Well, Roddick's best finish in FO (true test of baseline skills) was 4R, which he only did 1 time. In contrast:

Sampras = SF.
Rafter = SF.
Becker = SF. (3 times!)
Edberg = F.
Fed = FO champion.

If Roddick's baseline skills were so good, and he could win on slow courts (such as your Miami example), why couldn't he get past the 4R at FO in 10 tries? Career record at French Open (despite often being seeded and playing weak players in 1st/2nd round) is 9 wins, 10 losses.

Despite being seeded as high as #2, Roddick in his prime got beat at FO by such forgettable players such as Sargsian, Mutis, Acasuso, Martín, and Andreev.

 

[IowaGuy]

Roddick is not unusual for great servers on fast surfaces. Lots of guys like him aren't on that 200 list because of return stats falling later in their careers.

Exacly, he was a great server, no question. But, that was pretty much his only weapon (along with maybe his inconsistent and sometimes-lacking-confidence FH), as evidenced by his paltry results on slow courts and weak return game stats.

Better than servebots Karlovic and Isner? Yes.
Better than all-around Sampras-era players, who also relied heavily on their service games, such as Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Rafter, etc? Not close.

 

[IowaGuy]

return stats falling later in their careers.

Let's also remember that "late in their career" for Roddick is his late 20's!!!

 

[Heuristic]

Well, Roddick's best finish in FO (true test of baseline skills) was 4R, which he only did 1 time. In contrast:

Sampras = SF.
Edberg = F.
Fed = FO champion.

If Roddick's baseline skills were so good, and he could win on slow courts (such as your Miami example), why couldn't he get past the 4R at FO in 10 tries? Career record at French Open (despite often being seeded and playing weak players in 1st/2nd round) is 9 wins, 10 losses..

Andy Roddick reached the finals of the French Open doubles as a junior and has won clay court tournaments as a pro (Houston). I have already explained to you that Roddicks lateral movement/transitioning game was not particularly good, and clay courts accenuate that weakness even more since he has to glide. However, Roddick has explained the main reason he did poorly in the French Open is lack of practise compared to the Europeans who grew up on clay. Roddick grew up on hard courts and moves better there, but he was still never a great defender/mover on the court relative to most other players. The way Roddick dominated baselines was by ripping the forehand early and never letting go of the point.

 

[Heuristic]

(along with maybe his inconsistent and sometimes-lacking-confidence FH), as evidenced by his paltry results on slow courts and weak return game stats.
.

One has nothing to do with other. Before Federer broke him down psychologically, Roddick used to run around the backhand side and fire forehand winners on second serves. That's how he broke the Federers serve in the 04 Wimbledon-final, first set. Roddicks return game under Brad Gilberts coaching was not bad at all.

I suggest you rewatch the 2004 Wimbledon final if you think Roddicks return game was always poor. He just lost power, confidence in his own game, revamped his style and was never the same after he fired Brad Gilbert.

 

[IowaGuy]

Roddick has explained the main reason he did poorly in the French Open is lack of practise compared to the Europeans who grew up on clay....The way Roddick dominated baselines was by ripping the forehand early and never letting go of the point.

Well, one could say the same for Agassi and Courier (Bolletteri products), they both grew up on hard courts and both relied on a big FH to dictate points. Yet they both won a FO along with good results at USO and AO.

Starting to sound like Roddick is a one-trick pony. Excuses for not playing well on clay. Would have won more majors were it not for Fed, etc etc...

Yet, you think that magically placing him in Sampras' era (already very deep with talent!) nets him 5 hardcourt GS, in his short and injury-plagued career, against the likes of USO and/or AO studs such as Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, etc ???