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

[SLD76]

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.

ok, but I didnt say rafter had a more complete all round game..I said he had a better *grass court* game than Roddick.

If roddick could serve and volley or volley well at all, he'd probably have a wimbledon title.


Tommy Haas' career was riddled with serious injury, so who can say what he would have done.
Also, Nadal is much more mentally stronger than tommy. If tommy had roger. djoker or rafa's
fighting mentality, it might be a different story.

Djokovic is a better athlete than Hewitt, and is also a bit taller, which helps with his serve.
Hewitt, partly because of his size never had any big weapons. Djoker has a devastating
bh and his fh is light years better.

Hewitt like chang could only maximize the one weapons he had: movement , speed and anticipation.

Really, alot of your comparisons are apples and oranges.

 

[roberttennis54]

ok, but I didnt say rafter had a more complete all round game..I said he had a better *grass court* game than Roddick.

If roddick could serve and volley or volley well at all, he'd probably have a wimbledon title.


Tommy Haas' career was riddled with serious injury, so who can say what he would have done.
Also, Nadal is much more mentally stronger than tommy. If tommy had roger. djoker or rafa's
fighting mentality, it might be a different story.

Djokovic is a better athlete than Hewitt, and is also a bit taller, which helps with his serve.
Hewitt, partly because of his size never had any big weapons. Djoker has a devastating
bh and his fh is light years better.

Hewitt like chang could only maximize the one weapons he had: movement , speed and anticipation.

Really, alot of your comparisons are apples and oranges.

Roddick had more powerful ground strokers than Rafter, which helps on grass, especially the slower grass.

I know Haas' career was riddled with injuries and it cost him, but I don't think he would achieved more than Nadal anyway. I used Haas, because he is probably the most complete player on tour after Federer. Though, I could for instance compare Kiefer with Ferrer.

I am not too sure Djokovic was a better athlete than Hewitt until his gluten free diet. Novak may have been stronger, but Hewitt was faster and had more stamina.

Speaking of a player ruined by injuries Hewitt is another. Hewitt IS the best returner of the last 10 years and only second to Agassi in the last 20. Hewitt has a better slice and a far better net game than Novak. He also has better passing shots.

However, the point I was driving home is being better all round does not matter when another guy has a couple of overwhelming strengths. Roddick's serve and forehand made up for a lot of his other weaknesses. As he became a more complete player he lost what made him dangerous.

 

[helloworld]

Roddick playing the the 90s grass against Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, etc. would have 0 final appearance. He's lucky to be playing in this era.

 

[roberttennis54]

Roddick playing the the 90s grass against Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Agassi, etc. would have 0 final appearance. He's lucky to be playing in this era.

As opposed to the 00s with Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Federer, Hewitt, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Berydch and Tsonga right?

 

[helloworld]

As opposed to the 00s with Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Federer, Hewitt, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Berydch and Tsonga right?

Failed post...

 

[roberttennis54]

Failed post...

A decade started in 2000. In the subsequent 10 years those were the players, who won or did well at Wimbledon.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

This is a really good thread. I'd agree that in the Open Era, Roddick probably is the best player to have not won Wimbledon and I agree that throughout tennis history, from what I know, Rosewall was even better and could be credited with 23 Majors, and yet he never won an 'official Wimbledon title'.

 

[SLD76]

A decade started in 2000. In the subsequent 10 years those were the players, who won or did well at Wimbledon.

and roddick still didnt win, so what does that tell you of his chances in the 90's?

 

[SLD76]

Roddick had more powerful ground strokers than Rafter, which helps on grass, especially the slower grass.

I know Haas' career was riddled with injuries and it cost him, but I don't think he would achieved more than Nadal anyway. I used Haas, because he is probably the most complete player on tour after Federer. Though, I could for instance compare Kiefer with Ferrer.

I am not too sure Djokovic was a better athlete than Hewitt until his gluten free diet. Novak may have been stronger, but Hewitt was faster and had more stamina.

Speaking of a player ruined by injuries Hewitt is another. Hewitt IS the best returner of the last 10 years and only second to Agassi in the last 20. Hewitt has a better slice and a far better net game than Novak. He also has better passing shots.

However, the point I was driving home is being better all round does not matter when another guy has a couple of overwhelming strengths. Roddick's serve and forehand made up for a lot of his other weaknesses. As he became a more complete player he lost what made him dangerous.

and u think roddick would have had time for his massive fh windup when the ball was coming back double quick?

also, u think roddick would have been banging from the baseline in the era rafter played?

and rafter wasnt too shabby from the backcourt as evidenced by his *two* USO wins..one more than roddick.


and yes, roddick had a greate serve, fh combo. My point is, it wasnt enough to get the job done at WB.

If he had had a *full* grass court game, i,.e. the ability to serve and volley, approach the net, volley well, he would have won wimbledon...roddick is notorious for having some of the worst approaches to net of a top player and being an average to mediocre volleyer at best, and he couldnt serve volley because he wasnt quite quick enough to get to net in time.

Im not sure rafter would trade his volleying skills for roddick's fh at wimbledon.

 

[roberttennis54]

and roddick still didnt win, so what does that tell you of his chances in the 90's?

His chances in the 90s are not good either, because of Sampras. However, against the rest he stacks up well. He would he is stronger mentally than Goran, better than Agassi, whilst Stich and Krajicek barely turned up. Roddick's serve cannot be ignored. He played tennis in a far, far slower era and still held serve better than all the big serves of the 90s.

Roddick's game may not be attractive, but I don't understand the ridicule he gets. He is on the same level as Goran.

 

[SLD76]

His chances in the 90s are not good either, because of Sampras. However, against the rest he stacks up well. He would he is stronger mentally than Goran, better than Agassi, whilst Stich and Krajicek barely turned up. Roddick's serve cannot be ignored. He played tennis in a far, far slower era and still held serve better than all the big serves of the 90s.

Roddick's game may not be attractive, but I don't understand the ridicule he gets. He is on the same level as Goran.

who was ridiculing him?

All I said was that imo, he is not the best grass courter to never win WB because I dont consider him to having had a full gc game.


sheesh.

please, goran was so much more athletic and a much better volleyer than roddick, its not even close.

I get it, you are a roddick fan, and I have respect for roddick as a player, but lets not make him out to be what he wasnt.

he was a good tennis player, with a big serve.

he was not necc a good grass court player.

 

[kiki]

Roddick maybe a good new grass, slow courts but nobody on old, fast grass.Stolle was a better grass courter and he also lost three Wimbledon finals, all of them in consecutive years.Gerulaitis,Lendl,Tanner,Rafter would also be superior old grass players than Roddick.

 

[kiki]

...and Ilie Nastase and Tony Roche, too¡¡¡

 

[helloworld]

His chances in the 90s are not good either, because of Sampras. However, against the rest he stacks up well. He would he is stronger mentally than Goran, better than Agassi, whilst Stich and Krajicek barely turned up. Roddick's serve cannot be ignored. He played tennis in a far, far slower era and still held serve better than all the big serves of the 90s.

Roddick's game may not be attractive, but I don't understand the ridicule he gets. He is on the same level as Goran.

You know that both Goran and Agassi owned Roddick right? Agassi playing at 35 years old still schooled Roddick pretty bad. Old man Goran also blew Roddick off the court. Becker, Krajicek, and Stich were all better than Roddick on grass. Roddick is way out of his league in the 90s. At least he has some chances playing in this era, yet he still couldn't capitalize on it.

 

[SLD76]

You know that both Goran and Agassi owned Roddick right? Agassi playing at 35 years old still schooled Roddick pretty bad. Old man Goran also blew Roddick off the court. Becker, Krajicek, and Stich were all better than Roddick on grass. Roddick is way out of his league in the 90s. At least he has some chances playing in this era, yet he still couldn't capitalize on it.

basically. roddick's serve was tailor made for WB, the rest of his game wasnt.

 

[roberttennis54]

and u think roddick would have had time for his massive fh windup when the ball was coming back double quick?

also, u think roddick would have been banging from the baseline in the era rafter played?

and rafter wasnt too shabby from the backcourt as evidenced by his *two* USO wins..one more than roddick.


and yes, roddick had a greate serve, fh combo. My point is, it wasnt enough to get the job done at WB.

If he had had a *full* grass court game, i,.e. the ability to serve and volley, approach the net, volley well, he would have won wimbledon...roddick is notorious for having some of the worst approaches to net of a top player and being an average to mediocre volleyer at best, and he couldnt serve volley because he wasnt quite quick enough to get to net in time.

Im not sure rafter would trade his volleying skills for roddick's fh at wimbledon.

Yes Roddick would have time to bang away forehands, because his serve would have set up enough easy put aways.

For a long time Queens was just almost as fast as the old grass of Wimbledon. Roddick has done very well there.

Have you actually seen the way Roddick played against Federer? He came to the net a lot.

I need to ask if you actually watched tennis 8 years ago? Your comments seem based on second hand reports.

 

[SLD76]

Yes Roddick would have time to bang away forehands, because his serve would have set up enough easy put aways.

For a long time Queens was just almost as fast as the old grass of Wimbledon. Roddick has done very well there.

Have you actually seen the way Roddick played against Federer? He came to the net a lot.

I need to ask if you actually watched tennis 8 years ago? Your comments seem based on second hand reports.

he came to net alot, and who won the matches?

I didnt say roddick couldnt volley at all



I said he was *mediocre*

can you not read?

Speaking of mediocre, how about that high bh volley in the second set tiebreak?


anybody who says roddickl was a great volleyer really doesnt know what they are talking about.

As I said before and I will say again: If roddick could serve and volleyer or was just a better volleyer in
general, he would have won a wimbledon.

 

[kiki]

Roddick is one of the worst volleyers one can imagine.If I had just half of Roddick´s serve, I´d beat him in straights anytime on old Wimbledon, fast court...but, you know, the weakness of this era produces a three times Wimbledon finalsit...Nastase was about 5 or 6 times a better player than him and never reached a third Wimbledon final...he played in a truly competitive era, you know...

 

[roberttennis54]

People are twisting words, to suit their arguments. Stick and Krajicek were great talents, but they were often injured and not at their best.

Roddick's volleys were decent enough to win Wimbledon. He was no great volleyer, but he improved and some days volleyed pretty well. When he was losing, Roddick would panic rush the net and this is what led to him being embarrassed a lot.

As I have said before Queens, was very fast grass and it suited Roddick well. The faster the surface the better his backhand can cope.

Now days there is every match is pretty much there to be seen. Roddick in 03-05 has been called a pusher with a big serve, whilst others have said he would struggle with fast grass ignoring his tie breaker and queens club record.

 

[SLD76]

People are twisting words, to suit their arguments. Stick and Krajicek were great talents, but they were often injured and not at their best.

Roddick's volleys were decent enough to win Wimbledon. He was no great volleyer, but he improved and some days volleyed pretty well. When he was losing, Roddick would panic rush the net and this is what led to him being embarrassed a lot.

As I have said before Queens, was very fast grass and it suited Roddick well. The faster the surface the better his backhand can cope.

Now days there is every match is pretty much there to be seen. Roddick in 03-05 has been called a pusher with a big serve, whilst others have said he would struggle with fast grass ignoring his tie breaker and queens club record.

then why didnt he win it? clearly they werent. As your own words say, he was a decent volleyer...but not a good one much less a great one.



as per your second bolded, what you are saying is he was bad at coming to net. Well, there we agree.

Again, *if roddick had a more complete gc game* he probably would have won wimbledon. but he cant help that he wasnt quite athletic enough to serve and volley. it just wasnt his skill set.

 

[roberttennis54]

then why didnt he win it? clearly they werent. As your own words say, he was a decent volleyer...but not a good one much less a great one.



as per your second bolded, what you are saying is he was bad at coming to net. Well, there we agree.

Again, *if roddick had a more complete gc game* he probably would have won wimbledon. but he cant help that he wasnt quite athletic enough to serve and volley. it just wasnt his skill set.

LOL I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement. Of course it is true, but it also a ridiculous comment.

Might as well say Roddick did not win Wimbledon, because his serve was not good enough. If he served like Karlovic then he probably would have won Wimbledon. Alas it just wasn't in his skill set.

In all sports there is a bit of luck. Far worse grass players than Rosewall have Wimbledon titles. Worse grass players than Roddick have and will continue to win Wimbledon.

 

[helloworld]

LOL I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement. Of course it is true, but it also a ridiculous comment.

Might as well say Roddick did not win Wimbledon, because his serve was not good enough. If he served like Karlovic then he probably would have won Wimbledon. Alas it just wasn't in his skill set.

In all sports there is a bit of luck. Far worse grass players than Rosewall have Wimbledon titles. Worse grass players than Roddick have and will continue to win Wimbledon.

I cannot name a Wimbledon Champion in the last 30 years who were worse than Roddick. Can you please enlighten me with some names? Even Hewitt is probably the better player between the two...

 

[roberttennis54]

I cannot name a Wimbledon Champion in the last 30 years who were worse than Roddick. Can you please enlighten me with some names? Even Hewitt is probably the better player between the two...

Hewitt is not better than Roddick on grass. They met once on grass at their peaks and Roddick won. Roddick also was able to push Federer better than Hewitt and has more grass titles. Apart from that just watching the two, you can see Roddick's level is higher.

Roddick is also a better grass court player than Djokovic, Agassi and Goran. Have not seen enough of Ash, but someone, who has seen more of him can give an accurate opinion of who was better.

 

[NadalAgassi]

It is true Roddick wouldnt have even been as close to a Wimbledon title in the 90s as he was today. I do wish he had snuck out a Wimbledon title, but this is one of the only eras he would have even come close probably. Helloworld is right, there isnt any Wimbledon winner in the last roughly 40 years he is a better grass courter then. You would have to go back to Jan Kodes for a possability.

Roddick is also a better grass court player than Djokovic, Agassi and Goran.

Anyone who thinks Roddick is a better grass courter than Goran is clueless beyond words. Goran did everything better than Roddick on grass. Better 1st and 2nd serve, no comparision which was harder to return, obviously a much better return of serve (anyone returns serve better than Roddick outside of Karlovic maybe), much stronger backhand, better volleyer (again not saying much), superior overall athlete and better mover on the grass.

Roddick's only win ever over Agassi was a grass court win when 33 year old Agassi had a match point on peak Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. That was during the 18 month stretch of Roddick's career he had a mammoth forehand, never to be seen again, and had Brad Gilbert as a coach. Overall Roddick was 1-5 vs Agassi, despite most matches being in Roddick's prime and when Agassi was 32 or older. Roddick is not superior to Agassi on any surface. Agassi's return of serve gave him a real shot on grass in the 90s, Roddick wouldnt be able to return any of Sampras's, Ivanisevic's, Krajicek's, Stich's, serves on the old fast grass, heck on the old slick grass he probably couldnt even return the serves of Henman and Rafter considering how bad his return is.

Djokovic? Djokovic has actually gone 4 years without an early loss at Wimbledon, longer than Roddick ever went, in addition to winning Wimbledon of course. Beating Nadal in a Wimbledon final is not easy at all BTW in case you even suggest that. Nadal's Wimbledon record far eclipses Roddick's, and Roddick couldnt even get a set off Nadal on much faster grass at Queens.

 

[SLD76]

Hewitt is not better than Roddick on grass. They met once on grass at their peaks and Roddick won. Roddick also was able to push Federer better than Hewitt and has more grass titles. Apart from that just watching the two, you can see Roddick's level is higher.

Roddick is also a better grass court player than Djokovic, Agassi and Goran. Have not seen enough of Ash, but someone, who has seen more of him can give an accurate opinion of who was better.

hewitt owned roddick.


ROFLMAO at the rest.

 

[SLD76]

It is true Roddick wouldnt have even been as close to a Wimbledon title in the 90s as he was today. I do wish he had snuck out a Wimbledon title, but this is one of the only eras he would have even come close probably. Helloworld is right, there isnt any Wimbledon winner in the last roughly 40 years he is a better grass courter then. You would have to go back to Jan Kodes for a possability.



Anyone who thinks Roddick is a better grass courter than Goran is clueless beyond words. Goran did everything better than Roddick on grass. Better 1st and 2nd serve, no comparision which was harder to return, obviously a much better return of serve (anyone returns serve better than Roddick outside of Karlovic maybe), much stronger backhand, better volleyer (again not saying much), superior overall athlete and better mover on the grass.

Roddick's only win ever over Agassi was a grass court win when 33 year old Agassi had a match point on peak Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. That was during the 18 month stretch of Roddick's career he had a mammoth forehand, never to be seen again, and had Brad Gilbert as a coach. Overall Roddick was 1-5 vs Agassi, despite most matches being in Roddick's prime and when Agassi was 32 or older. Roddick is not superior to Agassi on any surface. Agassi's return of serve gave him a real shot on grass in the 90s, Roddick wouldnt be able to return any of Sampras's, Ivanisevic's, Krajicek's, Stich's, serves on the old fast grass, heck on the old slick grass he probably couldnt even return the serves of Henman and Rafter considering how bad his return is.

Djokovic? Djokovic has actually gone 4 years without an early loss at Wimbledon, longer than Roddick ever went, in addition to winning Wimbledon of course. Beating Nadal in a Wimbledon final is not easy at all BTW in case you even suggest that. Nadal's Wimbledon record far eclipses Roddick's, and Roddick couldnt even get a set off Nadal on much faster grass at Queens.

All the above bolded for absolute truth.

yeah, when he claimed roddick was better than Goran on grass I LOL'ed, hard.

Goran was a better athlete, better mover and light years better volleyer.

As I said, its not even close.

 

[roberttennis54]

One thing which is apparent is apparent is that many people here are talking about matches they have not seen.

Agassi is a bad match up for Roddick and his idol, but notably his one lost against Roddick came on grass. Agassi returned well, but during his younger years his serve was just too weak. He was always liable to being broken and he lacked mental strength.

How did Hewitt own Roddick on grass when despite his match up advantage he lost when they played? Even in 09 when both were out of their primes he lost again.

Calling Goran a better athlete than Roddick is just a plain lie. I don't know where this got started, but it is just not true. Roddick is faster, stronger and has better stamina. Goran was a good athlete for his height, but please lets stop with the myths.

You do realise that even now Roddick leads Novak on the head to head? They have not played on grass, but Roddick won their matches at Cincinatti, which is the fastest surface they have met. Even now Novak struggles to deal with slice and wet the grass is wet can slip a lot. He has one grass court title.

 

[SLD76]

One thing which is apparent is apparent is that many people here are talking about matches they have not seen.

Agassi is a bad match up for Roddick and his idol, but notably his one lost against Roddick came on grass. Agassi returned well, but during his younger years his serve was just too weak. He was always liable to being broken and he lacked mental strength.

How did Hewitt own Roddick on grass when despite his match up advantage he lost when they played? Even in 09 when both were out of their primes he lost again.

Calling Goran a better athlete than Roddick is just a plain lie. I don't know where this got started, but it is just not true. Roddick is faster, stronger and has better stamina. Goran was a good athlete for his height, but please lets stop with the myths.

You do realise that even now Roddick leads Novak on the head to head? They have not played on grass, but Roddick won their matches at Cincinatti, which is the fastest surface they have met. Even now Novak struggles to deal with slice and wet the grass is wet can slip a lot. He has one grass court title.

You are the one who is clueless if you think stiff, could barely get to net in time roddick is a better athlete than goran ivanisevic.

put it this way, dont u thinkk roddick would serve and volley if he could have?

oh, I guess he didnt because he didnt want to?

No, the answer is, his speed and footwork didnt *allow* him to be a good serve and volleyer, which is why fed owned him. fed knew he didnt have to worry about roddick coming in behind his serve every point and could slice/block the return deep. and we all know once the serve was neutralized and the point started, immediate advantage federer.

Goran was light years better volleyer

Goran was a great serve vollyer.

goran was athletic at the front court.

these are not debateable, except to you whose blind love for roddick
is blinding you to the facts.


ROFL...quoting the roddick.novak head to head , the last refuge.

I said hewitt owned roddick, period as Im sure you know roddick leads their head to head. Also, hewitt has a wimby, does he not even without having half of roddick's arsenal..but he hewitt was a beast of a returner( roddick below average) and hewitt was lightening quick and above average volleyer with passing shots for days...weapons that roddick again, is average at best.

tell me, how many times have roddick and novak played since 2009?
Has roddick even been around much to face prime novak/nadal?
ROFL...novak's one grass title is wimbledon. Granted, I see your point in
that novak isnt an all time great grass court player...but again, if novak could
do it and andy couldnt, where does that rank andy???

 

[roberttennis54]

You are the one who is clueless if you think stiff, could barely get to net in time roddick is a better athlete than goran ivanisevic.

put it this way, dont u thinkk roddick would serve and volley if he could have?

oh, I guess he didnt because he didnt want to?

No, the answer is, his speed and footwork didnt *allow* him to be a good serve and volleyer, which is why fed owned him. fed knew he didnt have to worry about roddick coming in behind his serve every point and could slice/block the return deep. and we all know once the serve was neutralized and the point started, immediate advantage federer.

Goran was light years better volleyer

Goran was a great serve vollyer.

goran was athletic at the front court.

these are not debateable, except to you whose blind love for roddick
is blinding you to the facts.


ROFL...quoting the roddick.novak head to head , the last refuge.

I said hewitt owned roddick, period as Im sure you know roddick leads their head to head. Also, hewitt has a wimby, does he not even without having half of roddick's arsenal..but he hewitt was a beast of a returner( roddick below average) and hewitt was lightening quick and above average volleyer with passing shots for days...weapons that roddick again, is average at best.

tell me, how many times have roddick and novak played since 2009?
Has roddick even been around much to face prime novak/nadal?
ROFL...novak's one grass title is wimbledon. Granted, I see your point in
that novak isnt an all time great grass court player...but again, if novak could
do it and andy couldnt, where does that rank andy???

My answer is this. I am off this week so I have a lot of free time. Watch these match or as much of it as time allows and then come back to me. Anyone else should watch a bit and then come back.
Agassi vs Goran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5jvw26H6N4
Watch this match if you have time too.
Fed vs Roddick 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubX07SIRbsA

 

[SLD76]

My answer is this. I am off this week so I have a lot of free time. Watch these match or as much of it as time allows and then come back to me. Anyone else should watch a bit and then come back.
Agassi vs Goran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5jvw26H6N4
Watch this match if you have time too.
Fed vs Roddick 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubX07SIRbsA

Yes, because clearly these matches define both players entire careers on grass....

rofl..one of the first points of the fed roddick match is roddick approaching right down the middle and getting burned.

Granted, it was a hard deep shot right at fed who has magic hands but still....nobody ever accused roddick of having a great approach to net.

Roddick played out of his mind this final...still lost.

and I still maintian his loopy strokes would have been eaten up on faster grass.

And I maintain, were he a better volleyer, he'd have won wimbledon.

that really isnt debateable.

oh btw, check out this link( not that it is definitive but....still)

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-15-best-serve-and-volleyers-of-the-open-era

pray tell where is andy on the list?

 

[10is]

Yes Roddick would have time to bang away forehands, because his serve would have set up enough easy put aways.

For a long time Queens was just almost as fast as the old grass of Wimbledon. Roddick has done very well there.

Have you actually seen the way Roddick played against Federer? He came to the net a lot.

I need to ask if you actually watched tennis 8 years ago? Your comments seem based on second hand reports.

This! Great post!

 

[roberttennis54]

Yes, because clearly these matches define both players entire careers on grass....

rofl..one of the first points of the fed roddick match is roddick approaching right down the middle and getting burned.

Granted, it was a hard deep shot right at fed who has magic hands but still....nobody ever accused roddick of having a great approach to net.

Roddick played out of his mind this final...still lost.

and I still maintian his loopy strokes would have been eaten up on faster grass.

And I maintain, were he a better volleyer, he'd have won wimbledon.

that really isnt debateable.

You do realise that Federer hit a ridiculous half volley on the base line at angle out of no where right? 30-30 first game of the match, deep hard approach inches from the base line, giving Federer no angle.

The grass was fast enough in 04. You are just making poor statements and ignoring what is right in front of you.

Those two matches don't define their grass careers, but it gives a very good indication of their grass court games.
Roddick went 3 years, where the only man to beat him on grass was Federer. He was something like 31-0 against the rest of the field; including Agassi yeh he was old, Hewitt, Ancic, Karlovic, Scud and Tojo.

It is crazy to think Hewitt was better than him on grass, just crazy.

 

[SLD76]

You do realise that Federer hit a ridiculous half volley on the base line at angle out of no where right? 30-30 first game of the match, deep hard approach inches from the base line, giving Federer no angle.

The grass was fast enough in 04. You are just making poor statements and ignoring what is right in front of you.

Those two matches don't define their grass careers, but it gives a very good indication of their grass court games.
Roddick went 3 years, where the only man to beat him on grass was Federer. He was something like 31-0 against the rest of the field; including Agassi yeh he was old, Hewitt, Ancic, Karlovic, Scud and Tojo.

It is crazy to think Hewitt was better than him on grass, just crazy.

yes, because matches where people play out of their minds are always indicative of a career..ask rosol.

You do realize you keep losing the plot, yes?
is he the best grass courter to neveer win wimbledon?

the answer is no.

the question wasnt "is roddick good on grass"

the question was, is he the best grass courter to never win wimbledon


the answer is a resounding, no.

 

[roberttennis54]

yes, because matches where people play out of their minds are always indicative of a career..ask rosol.

You do realize you keep losing the plot, yes?
is he the best grass courter to neveer win wimbledon?

the answer is no.

the question wasnt "is roddick good on grass"

the question was, is he the best grass courter to never win wimbledon


the answer is a resounding, no.

That was the question I posed and I already answered in the opening by saying I believe Rosewall was the best. However, apart from him, I claimed it was Roddick during the open era.

Looks to me like you have seen more of the match and realised the level Roddick was playing at.

31-0 for three years against anyone not called Federer is something, which cannot be dismissed. When he had a resurgence in 2009 apart from Fed and the retirement against Blake, he won his other 9 matches including Hewitt, Karlovic, Murray, Berdych and Melzer.

Yes Karlovic is always difficult on grass especially in the best of three sets. Ancic was a very good grass player. I don't see why you are laughing about him. Tojo had a huge serve.

 

[10is]

yes, because matches where people play out of their minds are always indicative of a career..ask rosol.

How is this a one-off? Between 2003-2005 Roddick was unbeatable on grass by anyone not named Federer. 2004 is merely an illustration of Roddick's play during what I would consider his peak -- Federer was somewhat fortunate to win that year. Roddick played brilliant "grass court" tennis (especially during the first two sets).

is he the best grass courter to neveer win wimbledon?

Perhaps not, but he is certainly one of the best -- no doubt about that -- who was unfortunate to have his grass prime coincide with the greatest grass court player of all time; this is especially notable considering he was defeated by only Federer in 3 consecutive grass seasons.

Roddick's struggle against Federer on grass is not unlike Federer's own trials and tribulations against Nadal on clay (at RG) during his own prime. By all accounts, the "far beyond is prime" Roddick 2009 Wimbly campaign would (and perhaps should) have been a parallel to the (out of prime) Federer 2009 RG triumph. Even without that 2009 RG title I doubt anyone would not deem Federer one of the great clay court players of all time, considering his performance against the field (barring Nadal) and the stature of his main nemesis on the surface.

 

[SLD76]

That was the question I posed and I already answered in the opening by saying I believe Rosewall was the best. However, apart from him, I claimed it was Roddick during the open era.

Looks to me like you have seen more of the match and realised the level Roddick was playing at.

31-0 for three years against anyone not called Federer is something, which cannot be dismissed. When he had a resurgence in 2009 apart from Fed and the retirement against Blake, he won his other 9 matches including Hewitt, Karlovic, Murray, Berdych and Melzer.

Yes Karlovic is always difficult on grass especially in the best of three sets. Ancic was a very good grass player. I don't see why you are laughing about him. Tojo had a huge serve.

roddick played out of his mind for one matfch...what does that have to do with his overall skill level on gc? or his average to mediocre volleying and inability to consistently serve and volley?

Karlovic has no ground game at all. just block the serve back, he cant hurt you from the ground. at all.

Tojo who?

Ancic's claim to fame was beating Fed at the olympics, he has hardly done anything of note since then.

Oh no doubt andy had an amazing run in 09..what does that have to do with his prowess as a an all time GC tennis player?

and please, hewitt was a shell of himself in 09, murray.....was still in his passive phase( but it was still a great win for roddick, no doubt), Melzer is no world beater. Did roddick have a great 09 run? yes, but aside from Murray, I cant say anybody he beat was a huge upset.

Again, the question is:

Is roddick the best grass court player to never win wimbledon.

The answer is no.

Id put rafter and henmen ahead of roddick. Well ahead.

 

[SLD76]

How is this a one-off? Between 2003-2005 Roddick was unbeatable on grass by anyone not named Federer. 2004 is merely an illustration of Roddick's play during what I would consider his peak -- Federer was somewhat fortunate to win that year. Roddick played brilliant "grass court" tennis (especially during the first two sets).



Perhaps not, but he is certainly one of the best -- no doubt about that -- who was unfortunate to have his grass prime coincide with the greatest grass court player of all time; this is especially notable considering he was defeated by only Federer in 3 consecutive grass seasons.

Roddick's struggle against Federer on grass is not unlike Federer's own trials and tribulations against Nadal on clay (at RG) during his own prime. By all accounts, far beyond is prime Roddick's 2009 Wimbly campaign would (and perhaps should) have been a parallel to the (out of prime) Federer's 2009 RG triumph.

Again, the question wasnt , does roddick suck on grass.

the question is, is he the best grass court player to never win.

to me, if roddick had developed a true gc game( i.e. better volleying, serve and volley) he probably would have won a wimbledon.

he never felt 100% comfortable at net, often had horrible approaches,
didnt have the speed and footwork to serve and volley and didnt have the best touch and feel for volleying.

to me, other great grass courters who had solid ground games as well as netgames are better *grass court players* who never won wimbledon.

 

[10is]

to me, other great grass courters who had solid ground games as well as netgames are better *grass court players* who never won wimbledon.

Who? And are you defining "better" via "success" on the surface or you're own sujective aesthetic standards of what constitutes "grass court tennis". Also, by that analogue you're assuming that they would have beaten a prime Federer during his peak as well (which of course will open up a whole different kettle 'o fish).

 

[SLD76]

Who? And are you defining "better" via "success" on the surface or you're own sujective aesthetic standards of what constitutes "grass court tennis". Also, by that analogue you're assuming that they would have beaten a prime Federer during his peak as well (which of course will open up a whole different kettle 'o fish).

by that measure, maybe if there was no sampras, henman and rafter would have won a WB,

but if you say grass courter, that means to me someone who exemplifies gc tennis.

serve, serve volley, net play. solid groundies.

so yeah, Ill take henman and rafter over roddick.
and btw, rafter has 2 USO titles 1997, 1998

 

[SLD76]

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.

basically what he said.

 

[10is]

by that measure, maybe if there was no sampras, henman and rafter would have won a WB,

No, neither were even remotely as consistent and successful on grass as Roddick was; and neither did they face Sampras in multiple Wimbly Finals.

but if you say grass courter, that means to me someone who exemplifies gc tennis.

serve, serve volley, net play. solid groundies.

so yeah, Ill take henman and rafter over roddick.

serve -- Roddick, serve and volley -- Roddick was never a great volleyer but his non-pushing power game in his prime did allow for easy putaways, solid groundies -- Roddicks groundies on grass (2003-2005) were only second to Federer's.

and btw, rafter has 2 USO titles 1997, 1998

Relevance? Why does that matter?

 

[SLD76]

No, neither were even remotely as consistent and successful on grass as Roddick was; and neither did they face Sampras in multiple Wimbly Finals.



serve -- Roddick, serve and volley -- Roddick was never a great volleyer but his non-pushing power game in his prime did allow for easy putaways, solid groundies -- Roddicks groundies on grass (2003-2005) were only second to Federer's.



Relevance? Why does that matter?

first bolded: and pray tell, outside of federer and perhaps hewitt and phillipousis, what was the grass court field like in roddick's prime vs when rafter, henman, krajicek, sampras, and goran played? roddick couldnt get past Fed( which u know, no knock against him) meanwhile who did rafter have to contend with?

That rafter was as succesful as he was during a fierce gc era should already let you know.

no doubt roddick in his prime had power groundies...and I maintain that if he could have had a better gc game, he may have one a wimbledon or two. but his net game remained average to mediocre at best...minus a few flashes of inspired, over his head play.

sigh, I hate to say it, but you know what? even if Roger wins 8 wimbledons...id say he is co goat with Pete on grass. I dont buy the weak era nonsense, but its clear pete's competition on grass was stiffer than roger's, thats for sure. sigh, then again, what would the field had looked like if the courts hadnt been slowed....

the reason I mention 2 USO titles is to highlight the fact that Rafter was no slouch from the baseline.
In other words, he had a better gc game than Roddick, which included solid baseline play.

 

[egn]

please, goran was so much more athletic and a much better volleyer than roddick, its not even close.

I get it, you are a roddick fan, and I have respect for roddick as a player, but lets not make him out to be what he wasnt.

he was a good tennis player, with a big serve.

he was not necc a good grass court player.

Goran was definitely not more athletic than Roddick. What are we judging as athleticism, because when it comes down to pure speed, running, stamina, quickness and power I'm taking Roddick over Goran everywhere. Roddick is in exceptionally good shape and almost everyone would agree in his prime he could play for hours and still not lose his speed/step.

Roddick wasn't a good grass player, you do not make 3 wimbledon finals and a semi without being a good grass player. Roddick was not a good clay court player, but please to say he was not a good grass court player. Oh God.

he came to net alot, and who won the matches?

I didnt say roddick couldnt volley at all

I said he was *mediocre*

can you not read?

Speaking of mediocre, how about that high bh volley in the second set tiebreak?

Oh my god. Let's bring up that one butchered volley, which first of all is not nearly as easy as we make it out to be as I doubt half of TW would even come close to hitting that one.

Second your first statement is pretty stupid. Stefan Edberg was a fantastic volleyer, who won most of his matches against Becker? Is Stefan no longer a good volleyer because he lost a match? Last time I checked Roddick lost those three wimbledon finals to a 7 TIME wimbledon champion.

anybody who says roddickl was a great volleyer really doesnt know what they are talking about.

As I said before and I will say again: If roddick could serve and volleyer or was just a better volleyer in
general, he would have won a wimbledon.

Personally I don't think serve and volleying would have helped him beat Fed in 2004, he threw everything at him there and lost in 4 sets. In 2009 you never know if winning that volley ends it. Remember it was the fact tat he feel behind that motivated to DOMINATE in that fourth set in that final.

Roddick is one of the worst volleyers one can imagine.If I had just half of Roddick´s serve, I´d beat him in straights anytime on old Wimbledon, fast court...but, you know, the weakness of this era produces a three times Wimbledon finalsit...Nastase was about 5 or 6 times a better player than him and never reached a third Wimbledon final...he played in a truly competitive era, you know...

Ha. Ha. Ha. Omg I'm sorry, I'm ****ting myself right now because my uncontrollable laughter might have caused my rectum to explode at the thought of someone who is maybe a 5.0 at best claiming that with half of Roddick's serve that they could beat him in a major. Omg. Hold on, please show me a video of your amazing game. I'm sure you must be at least inside the top 50 by now. Oh please, are you playing tennis with NSK? Let me guess Serena Williams is no match for you and on a good day you can take a set from Federer right? I'm sure you must have won like 5.0 nationals a million times, but you just don't play tennis full time because you'd rather troll forums saying you could beat major winners in straights if you had a better serve. Please tell me what are your credentials, zero. Oh god this is hilarious, this is the best thing I've read in a while.

I cannot name a Wimbledon Champion in the last 30 years who were worse than Roddick. Can you please enlighten me with some names? Even Hewitt is probably the better player between the two...

I'd argue Agassi was worse on grass. I'll get crucified on it for it. I'd say Hewitt is at his level. I'm not sold on Krajicek either, and I'll still stand by Djokovic is worse and can't even imagine how he won a wimbledon other then the fact that it is super slow grass and he got a mentally blocked Nadal in the final.

Anyone who thinks Roddick is a better grass courter than Goran is clueless beyond words. Goran did everything better than Roddick on grass. Better 1st and 2nd serve, no comparision which was harder to return, obviously a much better return of serve (anyone returns serve better than Roddick outside of Karlovic maybe), much stronger backhand, better volleyer (again not saying much), superior overall athlete and better mover on the grass.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=2&y=0

Oh really. Why is Goran below Roddick on this list? Maybe you are forgetting, but Goran was not a great returner on grass. I would say he is right on par with Roddick there. Also I'd argue that both of their serves are fantastic for grass, and considering both have won more than 90% of their service games on grass I think that says it all. What is with this Goran was a better athlete? Maybe I am misrembering him, but I never saw anything that fantastic out him. I'd give you the backhand, volleys by far and movement by a bit, but then again I'd agree Goran was a much better grass court player and probably should have 3 wimbledons but was a choker.

Roddick's only win ever over Agassi was a grass court win when 33 year old Agassi had a match point on peak Roddick and lost in a 3rd set tiebreak. That was during the 18 month stretch of Roddick's career he had a mammoth forehand, never to be seen again, and had Brad Gilbert as a coach. Overall Roddick was 1-5 vs Agassi, despite most matches being in Roddick's prime and when Agassi was 32 or older. Roddick is not superior to Agassi on any surface. Agassi's return of serve gave him a real shot on grass in the 90s, Roddick wouldnt be able to return any of Sampras's, Ivanisevic's, Krajicek's, Stich's, serves on the old fast grass, heck on the old slick grass he probably couldnt even return the serves of Henman and Rafter considering how bad his return is.

First of all. Agassi is a great player, but Agassi was never a consistent threat to wimbledon due to the fact that his game past the ROS wasn't fantastic on the surface. He had a good stretch in the late 90s early 2000s but the field had become so weak then it was easy for him to go deep.

Secondly I'm sure Roddick could snag a break against Henman,Rafter,Krajicek and Goran. Hell please throw Krajicek out the picture because outside of 1996 when was he even threatening to win wimbledon? He'd probably be screwed on Sampras and Goran, but Goran I doubt would be doing much returning on him. As Roddick easily has a serve that is very close to Sampras level and how well did Goran return that one? He broke him what once in all their meetings at wimbledon? He struggled to break Agassi's serve Goran. Please tell me how he masterfully continually breaks Roddick's serve?

You are the one who is clueless if you think stiff, could barely get to net in time roddick is a better athlete than goran ivanisevic.

All athleticism is judged by how quick after I smack a serve I can run to a line that's a few feet away. Ah ha!

put it this way, dont u thinkk roddick would serve and volley if he could have?

oh, I guess he didnt because he didnt want to?

Roddick would rather step in a bit get the weak reply and smack a forehand winner....He really doesn't want to serve and volley

Goran was light years better volleyer

Goran was a great serve vollyer.

goran was athletic at the front court.

these are not debateable, except to you whose blind love for roddick
is blinding you to the facts.

Agreed. However Roddick was more athletic at the back court and I'd argue had better endurance.

ROFL...quoting the roddick.novak head to head , the last refuge.

I said hewitt owned roddick, period as Im sure you know roddick leads their head to head. Also, hewitt has a wimby, does he not even without having half of roddick's arsenal..but he hewitt was a beast of a returner( roddick below average) and hewitt was lightening quick and above average volleyer with passing shots for days...weapons that roddick again, is average at best.

tell me, how many times have roddick and novak played since 2009?
Has roddick even been around much to face prime novak/nadal?
ROFL...novak's one grass title is wimbledon. Granted, I see your point in
that novak isnt an all time great grass court player...but again, if novak could
do it and andy couldnt, where does that rank andy???

Hewitt and Roddick play two completely different styles of play. Comparing their pros and cons is pointless. Hewitt also arguably won wimbledon with one of the weakest draws ever. He faced David Nalbandian in the final. His only tough opponent was Tim Henman who was Hewitt's whipping toy as Henman had no real good serve and power to his ***** and Hewitt would just pass and return ace him all day. Hewitt still almost lost to Schalken as well that year. Hewitt was fortunate to get that draw. Throw a prime Fed in that final in 2002 and Hewitt loses. (For evidence see 04-05.)

HOOOOOLD ON. So Novak didn't hit is prime to 2011? ********. When Roddick was beating Novak left and right I'd argue Novak was far closer to his prime than Roddick was. It's completely irrelevant to this topic, but please Roddick exposed a handful of flaws in Novak's game and did it consistently. Hell lets not forget when Roddick got it going in 2010 he demolished Nadal at Miami. Again Novak didn't face prime Federer in the final. Novak faced one of the worst Nadal performances in a major final. You are a Nadal fan and I think you can agree there.

 

[10is]

OMG SLD76 -- not the mythological "field" argument again. Iam simply going to stop any attempt at "discussion" at this point. Please, please, please try and actually take a look at Sampras's route to his 7 Wimbledons and the level of his opponents and then try and validate that hypothesis. You will assuredly fail. It's almost as if people who use these arguments never followed tennis in the 90s.

 

[10is]

Bravo for your post egn!

 

[SLD76]

OMG SLD76 -- not the mythological "field" argument again. Iam simply going to stop any attempt at "discussion" at this point. Please, please, please try and actually take a look at Sampras's route to his 7 Wimbledons and the level of his opponents and then try and validate that hypothesis. You will assuredly fail. It's almost as if people who use these arguments never followed tennis in the 90s.

did you follow it in the 90's? I know Ive been watching wimbledon since 1983, how about you?

And again, can we stay on task?

Did I say roddick was bad on grass?
NO

I say he wasnt the best grass court player to never win wimbledon.

at that point its a matter of opinion, you have stated your beliefs, I have stated mine, and we are not going to convince one another.

 

[egn]

first bolded: and pray tell, outside of federer and perhaps hewitt and phillipousis, what was the grass court field like in roddick's prime vs when rafter, henman, krajicek, sampras, and goran played? roddick couldnt get past Fed( which u know, no knock against him) meanwhile who did rafter have to contend with?

That rafter was as succesful as he was during a fierce gc era should already let you know.

Please find me a year when all of Sampras, Henman, Krajicek, Rafter and Goran played top notch in the same wimbledon. Oh wait it doesn't exist. The closest is 1998.

Either way picking a short sample say from 1996-2001

Sampras, Goran, Krajicek, Rafter, Agassi, Henman

then from say 2003-2008

Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, Ancic

Lets see for arguement sake....I'm just going based on overall success on the surface, consistency etc.

Fed = Sampras
Nadal > Goran
Hewitt > Krajicek
Roddick = Rafter
Grosjean < Agassi
Ancic < Henman

.....hmmm so FIERCE

 

[SLD76]

Please find me a year when all of Sampras, Henman, Krajicek, Rafter and Goran played top notch in the same wimbledon. Oh wait it doesn't exist. The closest is 1998.

Either way picking a short sample say from 1996-2001

Sampras, Goran, Krajicek, Rafter, Agassi, Henman

then from say 2003-2008

Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Grosjean, Ancic

Lets see for arguement sake....I'm just going based on overall success on the surface, consistency etc.

Fed = Sampras
Nadal > Goran
Hewitt > Krajicek
Roddick = Rafter
Grosjean < Agassi
Ancic < Henman

.....hmmm so FIERCE

you do realize you are comparing apples and oranges, yes?

Did you not see the part of my post where I said the fact that the surface of wimbledon changed completely altered what the grass field would have looked like in roddick's prime?

you do realize there is a reason why there were more uncharacteristic upsets at wimbledon prior to the grass being slowed, yes?

but yes, tennis on gc did not change at all between the two eras, lets look at your list again..

hewitt- counterpunching grinder
nadal-counterpunching grinder
fed-all court player
roddick-aggressive striker,/counterpunching grinder in the later years
aggassi-counterpuncher/excellent return
g

gee, I wonder where are all the serve and volleyers and volley specialists are.....

Hence, imo, no roddick is not the best *grass court player* never to win WB.

Great player, good on grass.

but not a better GC player than Rafter, imo.

 

[Gizo]

I have always thought that Roddick's game is far more suited to today's slower Wimbledon grass than the faster grass of previous decades.

On the faster grass, a players' return of serve and volleys (unless you had as strong a baseline game as Agassi) were even more important, and Roddick has always been poor in those 2 departments. Guys like Stich and Ivanisevic were far better returners than Roddick and had much better athleticism and mobility around the court as well. Krajicek's backhand return had improved significantly when he won his 1996 Wimbledon title.

Roddick actually complained when the indoor courts at San Jose were sped up in 2007, as the 'pretty fast' courts there suited his return and ground game far more than the 'lightning fast' courts that replaced them.

 

[Gizo]

And in addition to Rosewall I would rank Lendl over Roddick on grass as well. Sure Roddick has one more Wimbledon final appearance, but in 8 years from 1993-1990, Lendl reached 2 finals and 5 more semi-finals there.

Lendl's standard of play in his demolition of Becker in the 1990 Queen's final, was of a higher level than anything that Roddick has produced on the surface in my opinion.

He has wins over the likes of McEnroe, Becker and Edberg on the surface as well.