Is Andy Roddick the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon?

[roberttennis54]

First of all I would like to say I believe Rosewall was the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon, but Roddick must at the least be in the top 3 alongside Nastase. I think Federer beating Djokovic and Murray back to back past his prime should give us an indication of what Roddick was up against.

Statistically Roddick had one of the three best ATP service stats since records were kept. He has lost 3 finals to Federer and another semi-final, in which he was the heavy favourite for the final. Federer is quite hnest in his interviews and he has often said he was lucky to win the 04 and 09 finals. He has won Queens 4 times. Apart from the stats his level of play in my opinion is better than every other non Wimbledon winner in the last 20 years. The power of his serve, his forehand and his mental strength would have troubled anyone. Even though Wimbledon 08 is widely reported as the greatest match of all time I believe 04 had higher quality.

So the question is, has there ever been a better grass court player to not win Wimbledon? How does he compare to the likes of Nastase and Rosewall? How good was peak Roddick on grass and how does he compare with other Wimbledon winners?

 

[tudwell]

Probably Rosewall, but Roddick definitely deserved one.

 

[SStrikerR]

We all know he should have, even he does. He'll never forget that missed volley.

 

[Don Felder]

We all know he should have, even he does. He'll never forget that missed volley.

I think I'll remember 3 shots for the impact they had on tennis history for as long as I watch tennis:

1. Fed's attempted between-the-legs shot against Safin the year Safin won the AO.

2. Roddick's duffed backhand volley in that 2nd set TB in Wimby 09

3. Djokovic's "I don't give a crap" full swing forehand return winner at 40-15 on Fed's serve in 2011 USO.

 

[BigServer1]

I think I'll remember 3 shots for the impact they had on tennis history for as long as I watch tennis:

1. Fed's attempted between-the-legs shot against Safin the year Safin won the AO.

2. Roddick's duffed backhand volley in that 2nd set TB in Wimby 09

3. Djokovic's "I don't give a crap" full swing forehand return winner at 40-15 on Fed's serve in 2011 USO.

Pretty good list. I'd also take the opening Fed had, on his forehand, on MP in the 5th set tiebreak of 2006 Rome against Nadal. I think that was the match that turned that rivalry around forever.

 

[spiderman123]

I think I'll remember 3 shots for the impact they had on tennis history for as long as I watch tennis:

1. Fed's attempted between-the-legs shot against Safin the year Safin won the AO.

2. Roddick's duffed backhand volley in that 2nd set TB in Wimby 09

3. Djokovic's "I don't give a crap" full swing forehand return winner at 40-15 on Fed's serve in 2011 USO.

4. Federer's inside out forehand winner against Haas that flipped a switch and kept him alive for his career grand slam.

 

[BigServer1]

Also to the OP, yes, I'd vote for Roddick.

 

[purge]

4. Federer's inside out forehand winner against Haas that flipped a switch and kept him alive for his career grand slam.

yup was gonna add that one as well

 

[roberttennis54]

4. Federer's inside out forehand winner against Haas that flipped a switch and kept him alive for his career grand slam.

I agree that this shot more than the others changed the course of tennis history. Without that shot Federer would never have won the French, regained no 1 and possibly not won Wimbledon on the back of it. He would have to constantly face questions about the French Open for the rest of his career.

The other three shots would have changed the winner of a slam, which I suppose is tennis history, but I doubt would have changed events afterwards much.

If Fed wins Aussie 05, what really changes? He has one extra slam and that's about it. Same with Federer winning US 11. Another slam for Fed, but he went on a tear afterwards anyway.

 

[fed_rulz]

First of all I would like to say I believe Rosewall was the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon, but Roddick must at the least be in the top 3 alongside Nastase. I think Federer beating Djokovic and Murray back to back past his prime should give us an indication of what Roddick was up against.

Statistically Roddick had one of the three best ATP service stats since records were kept. He has lost 3 finals to Federer and another semi-final, in which he was the heavy favourite for the final. Federer is quite hnest in his interviews and he has often said he was lucky to win the 04 and 09 finals. He has won Queens 4 times. Apart from the stats his level of play in my opinion is better than every other non Wimbledon winner in the last 20 years. The power of his serve, his forehand and his mental strength would have troubled anyone. Even though Wimbledon 08 is widely reported as the greatest match of all time I believe 04 had higher quality.

So the question is, has there ever been a better grass court player to not win Wimbledon? How does he compare to the likes of Nastase and Rosewall? How good was peak Roddick on grass and how does he compare with other Wimbledon winners?

hmm... Lendl??

 

[Praetorian]

hmm... Lendl??

Close call... but probably still Roddick.

 

[roberttennis54]

hmm... Lendl??

Lendl won queens twice if I remember straight, Roddick won it 4 times.

Both made 3 finals, but Roddick lost to a better grass court player than Lendl did. Not to mention Lendl was straight setted every time in the final. Roddick pushed Federer all the way twice.

In addition Lendl did not win the Aussie Open on grass either.

Finally as little as we can compare players of different generations, I don't think Lendl's level of play was as high as Roddick. Roddick literally could go toe to toe with one of the best grass court players ever. I don't think the same could be said for Lendl. I admit he was before my time, but I have seen his finals against Becker and Cash. They seemed a level above him on grass.

 

[ZeroSkid]

I think I'll remember 3 shots for the impact they had on tennis history for as long as I watch tennis:

1. Fed's attempted between-the-legs shot against Safin the year Safin won the AO.

2. Roddick's duffed backhand volley in that 2nd set TB in Wimby 09

3. Djokovic's "I don't give a crap" full swing forehand return winner at 40-15 on Fed's serve in 2011 USO.

this one was earned, he did it the very next year so clearly it more than just "I don't give a crap"

 

[The Bawss]

Roddick was unlucky. That serve alone could have won him a title in 2004.

 

[Strobe Lights]

Ken Rosewall has 4 Wimbledon finals, including one at the age of 39. This is despite, due to playing on the pro tour, his not being able to play Wimbledon 11 years in a row. He was regarded as the best or second best in the world for a lot of that period.

Overall, he reached 18 Major finals (7 Amateur, 5 Pro and 6 Open) on grass, winning 8 of them (3 Amateur, 2 Pro and 3 Open).

Obviously, Roddick did not have the chance to play on grass as often. But even simply comparing their Wimbledon records, Rosewall is superior, despite not being able to play there for 11 of his best years.

Roddick for the Open era, sure. 4 Queens and 3 Wimbledon finals (including a tough 4-setter and an epic 5-setter against arguably the greatest ever grass courter). Recently added a 5th grass title at Eastbourne. A nice victory at the end of his career.

 

[roberttennis54]

Ken Rosewall has 4 Wimbledon finals, including one at the age of 39. This is despite, due to playing on the pro tour, his not being able to play Wimbledon 11 years in a row. He was regarded as the best or second best in the world for a lot of that period.

Overall, he reached 18 Major finals (7 Amateur, 5 Pro and 6 Open) on grass, winning 8 of them (3 Amateur, 2 Pro and 3 Open).

Obviously, Roddick did not have the chance to play on grass as often. But even simply comparing their Wimbledon records, Rosewall is superior, despite not being able to play there for 11 of his best years.

Roddick for the Open era, sure. 4 Queens and 3 Wimbledon finals (including a tough 4-setter and an epic 5-setter against arguably the greatest ever grass courter). Recently added a 5th grass title at Eastbourne. A nice victory at the end of his career.

I agreed beforehand, that I believe Rosewall was the best grass courter to never win Wimbledon, but the title 'Is Roddick the 2nd best grass courter to never win Wimbledon,' does not have the same ring to it.

I have watched tennis from the mid 90s and seen most of the big finals ie Wimbledon/US open from the the 80s. Rosewall, however, was before my time and have not seen any matches.

EDIT

I meant Lendl had been to 3 grass slam finals.

 

[augustobt]

4. Federer's inside out forehand winner against Haas that flipped a switch and kept him alive for his career grand slam.

5 - Missed BH from Nadal serving in 4-2 at this year's aussie.

 

[Devilito]

Remember Lendl was a baseliner that had to play on real grass. Not green pusher clay grass of today like Roddick had the luxury of playing on.

 

[roberttennis54]

Remember Lendl was a baseliner that had to play on real grass. Not green pusher clay grass of today like Roddick had the luxury of playing on.

With Roddick's serve making the grass faster would only help him. Yes he would be more liable to upsets against equally big serves, but it would increase his chances against Federer. In fact it would probably have extended the amount of time he could be competitive. Even with his declined serve, he would not have lost to Gasquet in 07 with the faster grass.

 

[Devilito]

With Roddick's serve making the grass faster would only help him. Yes he would be more liable to upsets against equally big serves, but it would increase his chances against Federer. In fact it would probably have extended the amount of time he could be competitive. Even with his declined serve, he would not have lost to Gasquet in 07 with the faster grass.

Roddick is a pusher / grinder with a monster serve. His serve is only going to get him so far. On slower grass he’s able to set up for his loopy shots and shoddy backhand more often and use his slice to some effect. His volleys aren’t bad but nothing special. He’s a very solid all-around player but I think the slower grass is more beneficial to him than fast grass would be. On slow grass you have amazing matches like the 09 final that was very close. On fast grass I see Fed making short work of Roddick. This is also the reason you saw Roddick take out Federer in Miami. If anything, I’m more surprised Roddick hasn’t done better at the Australian Open.

 

[Mustard]

Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzales.

 

[roberttennis54]

Roddick is a pusher / grinder with a monster serve. His serve is only going to get him so far. On slower grass he’s able to set up for his loopy shots and shoddy backhand more often and use his slice to some effect. His volleys aren’t bad but nothing special. He’s a very solid all-around player but I think the slower grass is more beneficial to him than fast grass would be. On slow grass you have amazing matches like the 09 final that was very close. On fast grass I see Fed making short work of Roddick. This is also the reason you saw Roddick take out Federer in Miami. If anything, I’m more surprised Roddick hasn’t done better at the Australian Open.

I guess you have not seen much of Roddick. When Roddick was younger he was a grinder, but when he came on the ATP tour his game changed. Roddick was a power player, blasting away forehands. His forehand was monstrous.

Watch the Wimbledon 04 final to see Federer struggling with Roddick;s power. Or stick on Roddick vs Safin at the Aussie 04.

In 05 it is clear he changed his power game, but he Connors brought it back in late 06. Watch Roddick in Cincinatti that year. Or watch him against Blake. Or look at the 2007 US Open.

It's the older Roddick, who became a grinder/junk baller with a big serve.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

you gotta throw Murray up there as well, no?

 

[Qubax]

Roddick is a pusher / grinder with a monster serve. His serve is only going to get him so far. On slower grass he’s able to set up for his loopy shots and shoddy backhand more often and use his slice to some effect. His volleys aren’t bad but nothing special. He’s a very solid all-around player but I think the slower grass is more beneficial to him than fast grass would be. On slow grass you have amazing matches like the 09 final that was very close. On fast grass I see Fed making short work of Roddick. This is also the reason you saw Roddick take out Federer in Miami. If anything, I’m more surprised Roddick hasn’t done better at the Australian Open.

I don't disagree that in many aspects Roddick likes the slower conditions on grass. That said the trade off is that when the court is hot, quick etc., it makes his serve even more difficult to deal with. So although the faster conditions expose Roddick even more off the ground and in virtually all rally exchanges - Andy is serving sooo quickly that the opponent often finds themselves serving 75% of the time. That adds a lot of pressure to the opponent. Eventually at 5-5 in a set Andy might get a break opportunity....and if he can capitalize...

 

[RogerRacket111]

Silly to call him a grass court player. I would say his big serve and forehand suited grass than him playing any grass court style tennis.

 

[roberttennis54]

I don't disagree that in many aspects Roddick likes the slower conditions on grass. That said the trade off is that when the court is hot, quick etc., it makes his serve even more difficult to deal with. So although the faster conditions expose Roddick even more off the ground and in virtually all rally exchanges - Andy is serving sooo quickly that the opponent often finds themselves serving 75% of the time. That adds a lot of pressure to the opponent. Eventually at 5-5 in a set Andy might get a break opportunity....and if he can capitalize...

US Open the fastest slam. This is how he played Federer. Yes it may be highlights, but try saying he was not a power player after this.

 

[roberttennis54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo
Sorry here are the highlights.

 

[OriginalHockeytowner]

Rafter is my vote: 4 grass titles and 2 finals appearances, but no Wimbledon victory

 

[Qubax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7D3iQxlUo
Sorry here are the highlights.

Sure he was a power player then.

Explain 2009 Wimbly...those conditions were almost clay like.

 

[roberttennis54]

Sure he was a power player then.

Explain 2009 Wimbly...those conditions were almost clay like.

Yeh 2009 Roddick was a different player. Both guys served very well, though Federer returned the Roddick serve poorly.

However, part of the reason he changed was due to Fed and Hewitt being great against power players. He changed his game to be able to beat them and win slams. Sadly it made him even easier for Fed to beat and the others. Connors got him back for a bit.

 

[Qubax]

Yeh 2009 Roddick was a different player. Both guys served very well, though Federer returned the Roddick serve poorly.

However, part of the reason he changed was due to Fed and Hewitt being great against power players. He changed his game to be able to beat them and win slams. Sadly it made him even easier for Fed to beat and the others. Connors got him back for a bit.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

If Fed wins Aussie 05, what really changes? He has one extra slam and that's about it. Same with Federer winning US 11. Another slam for Fed, but he went on a tear afterwards anyway.

It wouldn't just be "another slam". Winning that would have meant wining every non-clay slam for four straight years. Something astonishing.

And there was a lot of talk about Federer wining the Grand Slam that year after his fantastic 2004. Maybe he would've played with a lot more confidence in RG and beaten Nadal had he won in Australia. He would've reach the WTF without losing a match outisde clay in the whole season.

And that match end him a couple of important streaks. Straight matches (would have gone a lot longer), matches won against TOP 10 players, etc.

And he was just one point away of wining that Slam practically because Hewitt didn't stand a chance in the final (completely trashed him in the USO and TMC a few months before).

That was a tough loss for Fed.

 

[TeflonTom]

rosewall easy.

he used to smack laver round like a redhead stepchild on grass during his prime. beat him two years in a row on grass at the US Pro.

no player's legacy was hurt as bad by the pro-am split as rosewall. if it hadnt happened there is a very good chance that he would be the goat benchmark, not laver.

 

[kishnabe]

Ken Rosewall is the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon.

Won Australian and US Open on grass. Pity that Wimbledon never came to be.

 

[Tshooter]

Another vote for Muscles.

 

[Mainad]

Maybe, certainly in the Open Era. He won Queens (the Wimby warm-up tourney) 4 times and was 3 times a Wimbledon finalist. In his last final appearance in 2009 he came within a hair's breadth of taking the title. So why not?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Ken Rosewall by far.

 

[SLD76]

Short answer:

no.


if he had a full gc game (i.e. serve volley, volley in general) he may have won one.

His lack of complete gc game was the thing that stopped him, aside from the bad luck of having to face RF.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Rafter is my vote: 4 grass titles and 2 finals appearances, but no Wimbledon victory

But then Roddick had 5 grass titles and 3 Wimbledon final appearances. He also had an additional SF appearance at Wimbledon. Andy had a pretty decent overall W-L record on grass with a FedEx Index of .802 (which is higher than his index for other surfaces).

 

[jaggy]

Rafter and henman get a shout but Rosewall and Nastase I would say

 

[anantak2k]

Roddick was definitely anything but a pusher back in the days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn7DYgb4L88

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Rafter and Henman get a shout but Rosewall and Nastase I would say

8 or so names have been mentioned thus far in this thread. The OP was primarily interested in players of the past 20 years but also brought up the names, Nastase and Rosewall. IMHO, of all the players mentioned in this thread, only Rosewall has grass stats comparable to Roddick. Rafter, Lendl and, perhaps Nastase, would be the next to consider.

We should consider that players of early eras had more grass opportunities since more venues of yesteryear were played on grass. Prior to 1988, the AO was a grass tournament. Prior to 1975, the USO was also played on grass. For a number of other reason, it is difficult to compare players of different eras. For one, the speed of grass has changed over the years.

Also, a couple of the players mentioned played part of their careers prior to the Open era. Rosewall reached the Wimbledon finals 4 times, but only 2 of these were during the Open era. For the stats below, I will primarily consider the Open era. The first stat shown is the FedEx Index. The 2nd stat is the number of Wimbledon finals reached. The 3rd number shows the total grass titles for each player.

.802 ... 3 ... 5 ... Andy Roddick
.797 ... 1 ... 2 ... Andy Murray
.777 ... 2 ... 5 ... Ken Rosewall (also reach Wimby final 2x as an amateur)
.764 ... 2 ... 2 ... Ivan Lendl
.747 ... 2 ... 4 ... Pat Rafter

.714 ... 2 ... 2 ... Ilie Nastase
.712 ... 0 ... 0 ... Tim Henman
.643 ... 0 ... 0 ... Pancho Gonzales

 

[YellowBall77]

I feel like the answer to the OP's question is yes and no. Yes, statistically and maybe yes in general at least based on general level of play/finals made etc..

But, I never really felt he was gonna win it; by 2009 he had sucked for so long vs Fed that I only thought he could win for a brief moment in the 2nd set tiebreak. So, for about 90 seconds, I thought Roddick may win. Even in 2004, didn't think he could win it; definitely didn't think he would win it in 2005.

I definitely felt Rafter for instance could win vs Sampras and of course against Ivanisevic.

 

[Rhino]

I can see the argument for Roddick but in my view Pat Rafter was a better player than Roddick on grass.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ How about more evidence? Here are the W-L records for grass and the W-L records for Wimbledon for both Roddick and Rafter

85-21 ... 41-12 ... Andy Roddick
74-25 ... 29-09 ... Patrick Rafter

... But, I never really felt he was gonna win it; by 2009 he had sucked for so long vs Fed that I only thought he could win for a brief moment in the 2nd set tiebreak. So, for about 90 seconds, I thought Roddick may win. Even in 2004, didn't think he could win it; definitely didn't think he would win it in 2005...

Selective memory? Both 2004 and 2009 were close contests. In 2004, Andy won the 1st set and lost the 3rd in a tie break. The 2nd and 4th sets were lost by Andy by 1 break each. Could have gone easily gone 5 sets if the 3rd set went the other way.

In 2009, Andy outplayed Roger in many respects. Andy was not broken at all until his last serving game in the long 5th set (a 30-game set). OTOH, Andy broke Roger 2 or 3 times in the first 4 sets. Roger won 2 of those sets in tiebreakers. It took him 4.25 hours to finally break Andy's serve.

 

[TennisBatman]

Andy Roddick...

I wouldn't necessarily say that he's a better grass player than Tsonga or Berdych, but he definitely has the most flamboyant playing style, with his go-for-broke serve tactics.

 

[SLD76]

I can see the argument for Roddick but in my view Pat Rafter was a better player than Roddick on grass.

^^^this.

andy had a bigger serve, but rafter had a more complete gc game.

 

[TennisBatman]

Roddick is a pusher / grinder with a monster serve. His serve is only going to get him so far. On slower grass he’s able to set up for his loopy shots and shoddy backhand more often and use his slice to some effect. His volleys aren’t bad but nothing special. He’s a very solid all-around player but I think the slower grass is more beneficial to him than fast grass would be. On slow grass you have amazing matches like the 09 final that was very close. On fast grass I see Fed making short work of Roddick. This is also the reason you saw Roddick take out Federer in Miami. If anything, I’m more surprised Roddick hasn’t done better at the Australian Open.

Perhaps the problem at the AO was that Roddick was not able to adjust his shots properly as compared to the US Open or Wimbledon.

His accuracy seems to be a couple of steps below the top players, even when he was in his prime.

 

[roberttennis54]

Perhaps the problem at the AO was that Roddick was not able to adjust his shots properly as compared to the US Open or Wimbledon.

His accuracy seems to be a couple of steps below the top players, even when he was in his prime.

Roddick HAS done well at the Aussie.
2003 semi final, where he was exhausted after his epic quarters, lost to Schuettler.
2004 lost to Safin in 5 sets in an incredible quarter final. Very high quality and worth watching.
2005 loses to Hewitt in the semi final.
2006 Roddick is off form, but still takes a good performance from baghy to beat him.
2007 he loses to Federer, having the tournament of his life. Had he made the final I think his serve may have allowed him to win.
2009 loses to Federer in the semi final after beating Djokvic.

Roddick is probably underrated not just on grass, but altogether as a player.

 

[roberttennis54]

^^^this.

andy had a bigger serve, but rafter had a more complete gc game.

All round game is overrated in tennis. Nadal does not have a complete game, but is better than Tommy Haas for instance. Djokovic does not have a better all round game than Hewitt, but he is a better player too.

I think Roddick of 2004 would beat Rafter most times and Roddick of 09 would be unbreakable for him.