It is funny how most claim that it was right to consider Roddick the best last year, even though he got to 1 with cheating umpires giving him his U.S open semi with Nalbandian, and Federer had the clear head to head advantage. Yet one who considers Henin the best last year is wrong since she didnt best Serena apart from clay, and she gained the U.S open title and many late year points with Serena absent. What is the difference here. Roddick only had better results than Federer on one surface-Decoturf as well. Federer had just as clear a head to head advantage(I know Henin lead 2-1 head to head but Henins wins were narrow on clay like Roddicks narrow on decoturf, Henin was crushed the one non-clay, Roddick the two non-decoturf). Federer practically tennis-wise was better than Roddick, just as much as Serena was to Henin. Roddick had just as much luck with cheating line changes and a fan screaming out that a ball was out on a big tiebreak point to give Roddick his cheated U.S open semi win over Nalbandian; then manipulative scheduling to send an exhausted Ferrero to play Roddick in the final. Thus he had just as much luck as Henin with Serena missing tennis after Wimbledon. With Serena playing the second half of the year Justine does not reach 1. Without cheating at the U.S open Roddick wins no slams for the year and ends the year no higher than 4. So if Roddick deserves to be regarded as the worlds best player for the year 2003 so does Henin. If Henin is not really considered the best for 2003, since Serena was logically a better player, Henin only bettered Serena on clay, and Serena was superior in head to head battles outside one advantaged surface; then Roddick also was not really the best player in 2003, since Federer ability-wise is better than Roddick, Federer was only bettered by Roddick on decoturf, and Roddick was only superior in head to head battles outside on advantaged surface. If Henin didnt end a year 1 with Serena not injured, Roddick doesnt without biased U.S open officiating and directing.