How would Roddick have done in the 1990s?

[abmk]

Wikiposter ABMK is desperate to justify Fed goatness
The bad matchup issue is so hilarius
Right now he must be wiking all the way through to find a new argument or excuse
But his total nudity in tennis live experience is showed in any serious argument he posts

I already exposed the total BS in that post from blocker. But then you and he can share the same delusions ....

federer completely turned it around with hewitt and nalbandian who were very tough for him earlier >> But you wouldn't have a clue considering you know nothing about modern day tennis.

your boy laver would also have something like 2-12 or 1-13 record vs nadal on clay. So yeah .....

 

[Chopin]

Maybe an AO title?? Wimbledon and the USO is out of the question with Agassi and Sampras around. Even with Goran, Kraijcek, Stich, Becker around on grass.. And Edberg and Rafter on hards.

He may win 1 slam.. Possibly. Not much more than he did from 2003-on.

There is just too much talent littered in ALL eras for Roddick to win anything of note. He just was never that talented.

What would also kill him in the 90s is his TERRIBLE movement, and net transition game.

Definitley no USO or Wimbledon. An Old Agassi and Sampras showed how they would completely TEAR Roddick apart.

Sampras made Roddick look like a toddler at the USO. And Agassi completely outclassed Roddick in the h2h 5-1

Roddick was hurt during that match. He also has a winning record over Sampras. Roddick reached three Wimbledon finals--no one can take these things away from him.

Roddick would be a top 10 player in the 90s and on occasion he'd get wins over guys like Sampras and Agassi. I could see him winning a Wimbledon and a US Open.

 

[Chopin]

Let's assume that we add ARod to the bottom half of these draws:

1993: Has to beat Courier, Edberg, and Sampras
1994: Has to beat Ivanišević, Becker, and Sampras
1995: Has to beat Ivanišević, Becker, and Sampras
1996: Has to beat Todd Martin and Krajicek
1997: Has to beat Pioline, Stich, and Sampras
1998: Has to beat Ivanišević, Krajicek, and Sampras
1999: Has to beat Agassi, Rafter, and Sampras
2000: Has to beat Agassi, Rafter, and Sampras

This doesn't make any sense. If Roddick is in the tournament, someone else is out, and the draw will be different based on what Roddick is seeded. Roddick's very presence creates an alternate timeline.
...

This is one of the more baffling Talk Tennis posts ha!

 

[Chopin]

Done better IMO and bagged a Wimbledon.
He played so well @ Wimbledon wish he got one.

I agree. Club Chopin Forever.

 

[abmk]

ABMK, I don't know if you remember the exact thread, but Blocker has posted this before about Sampras never losing a semifinal or final at Wimbledon, and has been corrected (not by me but by at least two other posters).

Carelessness with the simplest facts is reaching new lows on this boards.

yeah, agreed. downright ridiculous arguments. Plain trolling if you ask me.

 

[abmk]

Borg,Vilas,Nastase,Panatta,Orantes ALL AT THEIR PRIME
Nastase,Newcombe,Ashe,Roche,Smith ALL AT THEIR PRIME

Murray and Ferrero in 2008? Not near their prime...

kodes only beat nastase and panatta of those players. Very good, but not that extra-ordinary. plenty of masters series wins that are more impressive than this.

newk did not play in madrid 75 ... his prime was mostly done after AO 75 ... injuries ....

smith did not play in madrid 75

ashe did not play in madrid 75

roche did not play in madrid 75


your so called list is a load of BS just intended to overhype your favorite.

-------

murray beat federer in dubai in 2008, he would reach the USO final that year.

....

roddick beat djokovic ( fresh off his AO win ) and nadal ( & past his prime ferrero ) in dubai 08. A more impressive win IMO.

 

[abmk]

I really don't know which sector is worse on this forum, the GPPD or the former pro player discussion?

well, both are good for laughs. Former pro, roddick is nearly equal to rusedski and in GPPD, isner is regarded as better than him :lol:

 

[kiki]

well, both are good for laughs. Former pro, roddick is nearly equal to rusedski and in GPPD, isner is regarded as better than him :lol:

IMO, Roddick is a better player than Glen...

 

[slice serve ace]

ABMK, I don't know if you remember the exact thread, but Blocker has posted this before about Sampras never losing a semifinal or final at Wimbledon, and has been corrected (not by me but by at least two other posters).

Carelessness with the simplest facts is reaching new lows on this boards.

unfortunatelly, abmk can be careless with simplest facts as well...haven't seen anyone correct him about this


- sampras probably hit his peak from 93 wimbledon onwards ... edberg didn't make a single semi at a slam after that ....
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7054392&postcount=36

- he didn't make a single slam semi after wimbledon 93.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7371013&postcount=194

- edberg's last good run @ a major was wimbledon 93 ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7370694&postcount=176

- edberg in wimbledon 93 form would be crushed by federer ... afterwards he didn't even make it to the semi of any slam
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7391788&postcount=813

- edberg never made a slam semi after 93 wimbledon
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7662542&postcount=67

- edberg didn't even make a semi after AO 93 in a HC slam
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7656970&postcount=13


posts are quite lenghty so i extracted the wrong part...as seen, he repeats it plenty times

abmk, edberg reached ao 94 semi...lost only 1 set en route (prior to that he won doha)...in 15 sets he won, he lost only 35 games...then he lost to martin in nearly identical score as vs stich in wimby 1991...after that he won stuttgart, lost SF in indian wells to sampras and QF in miami to agassi...even reached monte carlo SF, lost to bruguera (beat young costa, corretja and muster)...he had 31-6 start in the season, he was clearly in great form...unfortunatelly, it fizzled out by wimbledon...found some great form after with washington win and cincy final, lost to chang...but again lost it in bad time at us open
he was great at world championships in frankfurt, easily beat goran and was just barely edged by sampras and becker, later finalists, in great matches, was really unfortunate with the group he got, he would have reached the semis easily in other group. that was the last time i saw him play that great
all in all 60-26 score for the year - he was still tough in 94, and had periods of great play, just unfortunate to lose form for the wimby/uso
he had decent start in 95 as well, 16-3, won doha, but was beaten by krickstein at ao...after indian wells SF loss to sampras he was finished, went only 26-16 after that

 

[granddog29]

Apart from his serve his game was very ill suited to 90s tennis and better suited to todays slower court conditions. Overall net play, transition play from baseline to net and sometimes back, return of serve profiency, a strong slice, were all very important in the 90s and Roddick clearly doesnt excel in any of those areas. Even when his forehand was cooking, which lasted only about 14 months of his career, there were a slew of superior overall baseliners to him back then too.

Ultimately though he probably would have done similar in any era. 0-2 slams being his potential range, and probably ending up with 1 or 2 when he avoided a couple key people like how his actual slam did come.

 

[granddog29]

He would not win 3 or 4 slams as some are suggesting unless it was an extremely unusually weak field. To those who talk about how many slams Roddick would have won without Federer, well that just goes to show the field of 2004-2007 would have been incredibly weak had Federer not existed (and arguably was even with the inclusion of Federer). Anyway in any era you can take so and so out and hypothetically transform some 1-2 slam winner to a 4-5 slam winner, it doesnt mean that person is a 4-5 slam caliber player, which Roddick definitely is not based on his overall skill level.

 

[Chopin]

I see that it's necessary for me to point a few things about Roddick's game:

1) Roddick's serve is excellent by any standard, as shown by these numbers, which I compare with Pete's:

Roddick
Career Aces - 9011
First-serve percentage - 65
First-serve points won percentage - 79
************* points won percentage - 56
First serve average speed - 137 mph

Sampras
Career Aces - 8858
First-serve percentage - 59
First-serve points won percentage - 81
************* points won percentage - 53
First serve average speed - 123 mph

On faster courts with faster balls without polys, he'd be even more dangerous off of the serve.

2) In the 90s, you could get away with having a weaker wing (look at Sampras) in a way that you can't today. There would be less guys who'd be able to grind Roddick down off of the backhand side.

No one is saying Roddick would have many slams, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that he might have won 1 or 2 more, including a Wimbledon.

 

[hoodjem]

I already exposed the total BS in that post from blocker. But then you and he can share the same delusions ....

federer completely turned it around with hewitt and nalbandian who were very tough for him earlier >> But you wouldn't have a clue considering you know nothing about modern day tennis.

your boy laver would also have something like 2-12 or 1-13 record vs nadal on clay. So yeah .....

The actual numbered record of Laver against Nadal on clay? Such an amazing statistical knowledge!

WOW! I must have missed all those matches.:roll:

 

[krosero]

unfortunatelly, abmk can be careless with simplest facts as well...haven't seen anyone correct him about this

OK about Edberg's last Slam semi, but I don't want to equate an instance where someone says something and is not corrected, to another instance where someone is corrected (even corrected twice in this case) but simply comes back with the same false information.

Posting incorrect facts, even repeatedly, when the error is not pointed out, is something else to my mind because if the poster accepts the correct information, then no big deal, you all just move on. It is something else when a poster repeats incorrect information as if he's either not reading the posts responding to him (why post on a board if you're not reading responses?) or if you've seen the responses, and the correct information, but choose nevertheless to continue posting false information.

Nevertheless, it's good in all cases to have correct information and I'm glad you corrected this about Edberg; I had forgotten myself what he did after '93 Wimbledon.

 

[krosero]

As for Roddick, I have a hard time seeing him winning Wimbledon in the 90s simply because you essentially had to get past Sampras in order to do that. And he wasn't better than Sampras, of course; possibly no one else ever has been better, on grass.

He would have had a look in '96; but I'd still see Krajicek winning. Problem for Roddick is that at Wimbledon in that time period, unless you were Agassi, you had to SV behind virtually every serve. I don't think Roddick's net game would have been quite good enough.

I put it that way -- not outright dismissing him -- because I think if he'd been in that time period, he'd have a whole decade in which to hone a SV game: and he'd be better at it than we actually saw him do in the 2000s. He demonstrated the ability to improve at net. At 2009 Wimbledon his net numbers were excellent: he won 67% of 42 approaches against Hewitt, 64% of 75 approaches vs Murray and 61% of 69 approaches vs Federer.

Those are excellent numbers in themselves (against great defenders), and a good deal better than what he did in earlier Wimbledon finals.

So if he demonstrated the ability to improve the kind of net game he played in this era (a mix of SV and groundstroke approaches), then it's a good bet that he would have shown improvement in the all-SV net game of the 90s at Wimbledon.

Do I think it would have been good enough to beat Sampras or Krajicek? Not quite.

I think his best chances would have been at the hardcourt Slams.

And back then he could have attacked the net on hard court with a mix of SV and groundstroke approaches. He demonstrated that he could post above 60% success at net with that type of game, so if he could do that at a hardcourt Slam he'd definitely have great chances.

 

[abmk]

unfortunatelly, abmk can be careless with simplest facts as well...haven't seen anyone correct him about this


- sampras probably hit his peak from 93 wimbledon onwards ... edberg didn't make a single semi at a slam after that ....
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7054392&postcount=36

- he didn't make a single slam semi after wimbledon 93.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7371013&postcount=194

- edberg's last good run @ a major was wimbledon 93 ...
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7370694&postcount=176

- edberg in wimbledon 93 form would be crushed by federer ... afterwards he didn't even make it to the semi of any slam
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7391788&postcount=813

- edberg never made a slam semi after 93 wimbledon
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7662542&postcount=67

- edberg didn't even make a semi after AO 93 in a HC slam
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7656970&postcount=13


posts are quite lenghty so i extracted the wrong part...as seen, he repeats it plenty times

abmk, edberg reached ao 94 semi...lost only 1 set en route (prior to that he won doha)...in 15 sets he won, he lost only 35 games...then he lost to martin in nearly identical score as vs stich in wimby 1991...after that he won stuttgart, lost SF in indian wells to sampras and QF in miami to agassi...even reached monte carlo SF, lost to bruguera (beat young costa, corretja and muster)...he had 31-6 start in the season, he was clearly in great form...unfortunatelly, it fizzled out by wimbledon...found some great form after with washington win and cincy final, lost to chang...but again lost it in bad time at us open
he was great at world championships in frankfurt, easily beat goran and was just barely edged by sampras and becker, later finalists, in great matches, was really unfortunate with the group he got, he would have reached the semis easily in other group. that was the last time i saw him play that great
all in all 60-26 score for the year - he was still tough in 94, and had periods of great play, just unfortunate to lose form for the wimby/uso
he had decent start in 95 as well, 16-3, won doha, but was beaten by krickstein at ao...after indian wells SF loss to sampras he was finished, went only 26-16 after that

my mistake. yeah, edberg did reach the semi at AO in 94. thanks for posting that and the other parts.

but the fact that no one bothered to correct me even after multiple posts just goes to show that not many remembered what edberg did after wimby 93 - that he didn't do much special after that.

doesn't change the crux of most of the posts I made regarding edberg in there - that edberg wasn't that big a factor once sampras hit his peak .

 

[kiki]

The actual numbered record of Laver against Nadal on clay? Such an amazing statistical knowledge!

WOW! I must have missed all those matches.:roll:

!!
Yeah!!!
Can you provide some footage of that beating?
It wIll close the mouths of those dinosaurs that live in the croatian
Sorry the Cretatian

 

[slice serve ace]

OK about Edberg's last Slam semi, but I don't want to equate an instance where someone says something and is not corrected, to another instance where someone is corrected (even corrected twice in this case) but simply comes back with the same false information.

ah so
that's different, yes

 

[granddog29]

Some of you need to be reminded that Roddick was 1-5 lifetime vs Andre Aggasi. Agassi was 32 or older at the time of all but 1 of those matches, and Roddick was at his true peak (mid 2003-end of 2004) during about 3 of those. The only win Roddick had was peak Roddick saving a match point vs a by then 33 or 34 year old Agassi, and Roddick that day hit the fastest ever recorded serve yet Agassi got it back in play and I believe won the point, which shows how his serve would not be that effective a weapon vs Agassi.

Yet Agassi was not even the best player of the hypothetical era we are putting Roddick in. Roddick and Sampras played when neither player was in their prime so the matches really mean nothing, but if you want to go there the total smackdown grandpa Sampras at this last ever U.S Open layed on young Roddick who U.S.A team crowed would easily win that match is telling. Prime for prime how would Roddick hurt Sampras. Sampras is superior to Roddick in every single facet of the game. Serve, return of serve, forehand, backhand, volley, overhead, movement, trick shots, passing shots, mental toughness. Is there a single thing anyone can name Roddick is better at. Sampras in many ways probably be the worst matchup of all for Roddick. Atleast Federer, Roddick can outserve and ocasionally overpower, neither of which he can do to Sampras.

 

[granddog29]

When comparing Sampras and Roddick serves there is no comparision in the disguise, placement, and variety of their serves. Despite MPH ratings which really mean nothing when 35 year old Brenda Schultz can return at 35 and reach 15 more MPH than she did in her prime somehow, Sampras had the more powerful and heavy serve still as well. One time a guy broke his raquet trying to return Sampras's serve, something I doubt would ever happen with Roddick.

The only aspect Roddick's serve could be superior was higher first serve percentage something, but everything else it is all Sampras easily.

 

[granddog29]

For people thinking that Roddick would win more than 1 Major in the 1990s, I say: Pick a Major, any Major, and let's see whom ARod would have needed to beat to take the title. Here's Wimbledon in the 1st half of the 1990s as an example:

1990: Probably has to beat Edberg and Becker.

1991robably has to beat at least 2/3 of Stich, Becker, and Edberg, and maybe all 3

1992: Probably has to beat 3 and maybe 4 of the following: Agassi, Ivanišević, Sampras, McEnroe, Stich, Becker, and Edberg

1993: Probably has to beat 3 and maybe 4 of the following: Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Stich, and Agassi

1994: Probably has to beat at least 2/3 of Sampras, Ivanišević, and Becker

1995: Probably has to beat 3/4 of Sampras, Becker, Ivanišević, and Agassi

Good summary. It doesnt even need to be a deep field anyway as just one of any of Sampras or Agassi in form (apart from Agassi on grass which Roddick might have a chance against), Ivanisevic in form at Wimbledon, Courier in form on any slow surface, Becker in good form on any fast surface, is enough to all but guarantee Roddick not winning that paritcular slam. That is before even geting into the depth of the field and the other various potential threats.

 

[abmk]

Some of you need to be reminded that Roddick was 1-5 lifetime vs Andre Aggasi. Agassi was 32 or older at the time of all but 1 of those matches, and Roddick was at his true peak (mid 2003-end of 2004) during about 3 of those. The only win Roddick had was peak Roddick saving a match point vs a by then 33 or 34 year old Agassi, and Roddick that day hit the fastest ever recorded serve yet Agassi got it back in play and I believe won the point, which shows how his serve would not be that effective a weapon vs Agassi.

Yet Agassi was not even the best player of the hypothetical era we are putting Roddick in. Roddick and Sampras played when neither player was in their prime so the matches really mean nothing, but if you want to go there the total smackdown grandpa Sampras at this last ever U.S Open layed on young Roddick who U.S.A team crowed would easily win that match is telling. Prime for prime how would Roddick hurt Sampras. Sampras is superior to Roddick in every single facet of the game. Serve, return of serve, forehand, backhand, volley, overhead, movement, trick shots, passing shots, mental toughness. Is there a single thing anyone can name Roddick is better at. Sampras in many ways probably be the worst matchup of all for Roddick. Atleast Federer, Roddick can outserve and ocasionally overpower, neither of which he can do to Sampras.

roddick can outserve/overpower sampras ( serve+fh ) , win the close sets.

roddick was injured in USO 02

in 03-04 , roddick agassi met twice on grass/hard. they split it, with roddick winning at queens and agassi at cincy. Both going to a 3rd set breaker . agassi in 03-04 was playing way better than he was in 93-early 94 and 96-98.

 

[kiki]

Good summary. It doesnt even need to be a deep field anyway as just one of any of Sampras or Agassi in form (apart from Agassi on grass which Roddick might have a chance against), Ivanisevic in form at Wimbledon, Courier in form on any slow surface, Becker in good form on any fast surface, is enough to all but guarantee Roddick not winning that paritcular slam. That is before even geting into the depth of the field and the other various potential threats.

Yes it was fantasy games but nothing close to reality
Roddick is a good player with above the average S and FH
But the 90 were the era of the great servers and he couldn't stand a chance at inspired servers who also had a better ROS and, of course a volley
Ivanisevic,Krajicek,Becker,Stich and of course Sampras
On medium to slow HC he may beat one or two of them but he can get scalped too
And, of course,there is Agassi and Courier,Kafelnikov,Rafter

Provided standart equipment of 90, which takes away some power I just can't see him winning one slam but even if he does, a second is clearly out of his reach

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

yeah true, I believe he would have a similar career to todd martin,
pretty consistently deep in melbourne, london and NY and not quite the technique/talent combo to do it. I can possibly see him wiining in Aus in say 92/93 prior to sampras arriving or maybe 99 when yevgeny did well...so probably one slam...similar to now.

the problem he would have either side of the atlantic is the number of genuinely fast court players...guys like martin himself, henman, krajicek, rusedski(i think he's better than greg thou) etc etc..and guys who simple back up their serves with good volleys.

Interestingly...I've always felt mark philippousis had a conflict about coming in or staying back in his career...and had a similar dilemma to what andy faced around 05/06. I have a feeling that, he didn't because he realised he would never have decent hands at the net, heck, even a krajicek or a becker have far better feel than andy jsut watching the vids. Mark could have..but injuries got in the way.

Having said that for all the roddick bashing....andy was unlucky federer was so consistent. had federer been "off" say US 06 or wimby 05 etc..he could have got an even break like yevgeny or courier got in their careers.

 

[kiki]

Roddick has big S and FH
But so did Becker and Sampras won almost all their big clashes
And Becker R, BH, volley and mind were shoulders above Roddick
I can' t see Roddick taking a big match away from a fit Sampras
No way it could become true

 

[BGod]

Assume 2002-2010 Roddick is transported to 1992-2000. I think he wins between 5-9 Slams depending on his confidence and how the draws play out. He'd best be able to take down Sampras at the USO but could muster a Wimbledon crown considering I'd take prime Roddick over Goran and Goran came really close against Pete twice and did beat him once in 92. I can't see a confident Roddick losing to Goran on the flip side.

So most optimistically he wins 3 Wimbledons, 4 USOs and 2 in Australia. At worst though I'd see 3 USO and 2 Wimbledons.

 

[JasonZ]

He would have won queens

 

[mxmx]

Sorry no, there were better and more complete fast courters like Krajicek,Stich,Sampras,maybe Martin, certainly Edberg,Rafter and Becker.At most he remains a one timer like Ivanisevic ( whom I rate a bit more talented ) or gets 0 wins ( like big serving Rusdeski, even if Roddick is a more complete player).

With his inconsistent backhand and unexistent volley, he struggles to reach the top ten.

I agree with everything except that I believe he could win a slam and be top 10.

 

[toth]

2-3 GS maybe, who knows...

 

[mxmx]

As for Roddick, I have a hard time seeing him winning Wimbledon in the 90s simply because you essentially had to get past Sampras in order to do that. And he wasn't better than Sampras, of course; possibly no one else ever has been better, on grass.

He would have had a look in '96; but I'd still see Krajicek winning. Problem for Roddick is that at Wimbledon in that time period, unless you were Agassi, you had to SV behind virtually every serve. I don't think Roddick's net game would have been quite good enough.

I put it that way -- not outright dismissing him -- because I think if he'd been in that time period, he'd have a whole decade in which to hone a SV game: and he'd be better at it than we actually saw him do in the 2000s. He demonstrated the ability to improve at net. At 2009 Wimbledon his net numbers were excellent: he won 67% of 42 approaches against Hewitt, 64% of 75 approaches vs Murray and 61% of 69 approaches vs Federer.

Those are excellent numbers in themselves (against great defenders), and a good deal better than what he did in earlier Wimbledon finals.

So if he demonstrated the ability to improve the kind of net game he played in this era (a mix of SV and groundstroke approaches), then it's a good bet that he would have shown improvement in the all-SV net game of the 90s at Wimbledon.

Do I think it would have been good enough to beat Sampras or Krajicek? Not quite.

I think his best chances would have been at the hardcourt Slams.

And back then he could have attacked the net on hard court with a mix of SV and groundstroke approaches. He demonstrated that he could post above 60% success at net with that type of game, so if he could do that at a hardcourt Slam he'd definitely have great chances.

I agree with what you said.

Just take note those that say he "would have improved his net game in the 90s" that the returners of that time "would have improved their return game" because of the Roddic serve. Agassi's great returns are a testament to the great servers of that time.

Also, someone like Edberg or Rafter had great serves even without the pace. Placement, spin, variation...akwardness etc.
I've had more trouble with some good lady serves in mixed doubles than those of the more powerfup male serves. Slower serves makes time to reach the first volley easier for the server.

 

[Vincent-C]

Badly.