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

[Mustard]

I definitely consider Goran Ivanisevic to be a better grass-court player than Andy Roddick overall, although Roddick is clearly the more consistent player while Goran was more volatile. If Goran was in the mood and he kept his temper, he won, as simple as that. If he didn't keep his temper, anything could happen.

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.

Apart from 1990 Queen's Club, which was grass-court perfection from Lendl after 2 months of practice on the surface, Lendl never looked comfortable on grass. Lendl insisting on serve and volleying on grass, which was not his natural game, made it even worse.

Lendl did extremely well to get the results he did at Wimbledon. He had a lot of tough matches there that he managed to win. For example, in 1984 against Stockton and S. Davis, in 1985 against M. Leach, in 1986 against Anger, Mayotte and Zivojinovic, in 1987 against Saceanu, Cane, Reneberg, Leconte and Edberg, in 1988 against Cahill, Schapers and Woodforde, in 1989 against Pereira, Bathman and Lundgren etc. All these were tough matches that Lendl could have lost, but which he managed to win.

And some of his losses, such as when Leconte beat him in 1985, as well as the 1986 and 1987 finals against Becker and Cash, saw Lendl totally outclassed. Ironically, Lendl's easiest run to the Wimbledon semi finals was in 1983, when his expectations were very low. He had a close 3-set semi final match against McEnroe, with Chris Lewis waiting in the final.

 

[Gizo]

Apart from 1990 Queen's Club, which was grass-court perfection from Lendl after 2 months of practice on the surface, Lendl never looked comfortable on grass. Lendl insisting on serve and volleying on grass, which was not his natural game, made it even worse.

He didn't look as comfortable on grass as the natural grass court players like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg on grass and but overall I thought he looked just fine on the surface. A player who 'never looked comfortable' on grass would have no chance of achieving his results and remarkable consistency on the surface.

He was right to serve-volley on his 1st serves (his groundstrokes had a longer wind-up than Agassi's), but on his 2nd serves he should have stayed back more like Borg did.

Lendl did extremely well to get the results he did at Wimbledon. He had a lot of tough matches there that he managed to win. For example, in 1984 against Stockton and S. Davis, in 1985 against M. Leach, in 1986 against Anger, Mayotte and Zivojinovic, in 1987 against Saceanu, Cane, Reneberg, Leconte and Edberg, in 1988 against Cahill, Schapers and Woodforde, in 1989 against Pereira, Bathman and Lundgren etc. All these were tough matches that Lendl could have lost, but which he managed to win.

True but that was very common for most top players back then with 16 seeds and dangerous early round matches. Borg and Laver had many close escapes and tough 5 set matches early on in slams as well. The fact that Lendl found a way to win so many of those tough matches enhances his grass court prowess rather than detract from it.

His best win at Wimbledon was probably his SF victory over Edberg in 1987.

And some of his losses, such as when Leconte beat him in 1985, as well as the 1986 and 1987 finals against Becker and Cash, saw Lendl totally outclassed. Ironically, Lendl's easiest run to the Wimbledon semi finals was in 1983, when his expectations were very low. He had a close 3-set semi final match against McEnroe, with Chris Lewis waiting in the final.

When Becker was in the zone on a faster surface there was not much that any of his opponents could do stop him. Cash was incredibly talented player and volleyer that regularly caused Lendl problems. He was in red-hot form that fortnight.

Leconte was a supremely gifted shotmaker who owned Lendl at the time. It wasn't as if he was losing to nobodies here. Very talented and in-form players were stopping him. 1985 was the only time he failed to reach the last 4 at Wimbledon from 1983-1990 which was incredible.

That 1983 semi-final was one of the best performances of McEnroe's career. It was a grass court clinic almost as good as his massacre of Connors a year later.

Lendl's won over 77% of the matches he played at Wimbledon (his career W-L record there was 48-14), a better percentage than many Wimbledon champions, which shows how strong he was on his weakest surface. Unlucky for him that he wasn't able to play on the 100% rye grass.

 

[egn]

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.

So grass is simply defined as fast grass. Last I checked there was still grass at wimbledon. Also do you really believe great players like Roddick/Nadal/Djok would not have modified their game to win wimbledon on fast grass if they had to. My point is the argument is dumb. You blame Roddick for playing the style of play that works best for the surface. The top build their games around what they are playing on. Roddick's Wimbledon game has a lot to do with the wimbledon he was playing on. Same goes for Fed/Nadal. Just look at how guys like Lendl,Courier,Borg and Agassi to an extent switched up their game for grass. I'm sure had Roddick had quick grass he would have spent more times working on his net game and focus. Besides considering the grass doesn't seem like it is changing anytime soon in 50 years the whole concept of a grass court player might be different. It's not like wimbledon isn't grass anymore either. You are comparing apples to oranges as well. Just doing it in a different way, establishing what you feel should be the superior judgement of how it is supposed to be played on grass. Hell we stick Rafter in the surface now he probably struggles to make semis and quarters and has similar success to probably Jo-Willy and Feliciano on the surface. It goes both ways. Roddick however has played on his grass fantastic and the grass from 01 on.

 

[pc1]

He didn't look as comfortable on grass as the natural grass court players like McEnroe, Becker and Edberg on grass and but overall I thought he looked just fine on the surface. A player who 'never looked comfortable' on grass would have no chance of achieving his results and remarkable consistency on the surface.

He was right to serve-volley on his 1st serves (his groundstrokes had a longer wind-up than Agassi's), but on his 2nd serves he should have stayed back more like Borg did.



True but that was very common for most top players back then with 16 seeds and dangerous early round matches. Borg and Laver had many close escapes and tough 5 set matches early on in slams as well. The fact that Lendl found a way to win so many of those tough matches enhances his grass court prowess rather than detract from it.

His best win at Wimbledon was probably his SF victory over Edberg in 1987.



When Becker was in the zone on a faster surface there was not much that any of his opponents could do stop him. Cash was incredibly talented player and volleyer that regularly caused Lendl problems. He was in red-hot form that fortnight.

Leconte was a supremely gifted shotmaker who owned Lendl at the time. It wasn't as if he was losing to nobodies here. Very talented and in-form players were stopping him. 1985 was the only time he failed to reach the last 4 at Wimbledon from 1983-1990 which was incredible.

That 1983 semi-final was one of the best performances of McEnroe's career. It was a grass court clinic almost as good as his massacre of Connors a year later.

Lendl's won over 77% of the matches he played at Wimbledon (his career W-L record there was 48-14), a better percentage than many Wimbledon champions, which shows how strong he was on his weakest surface. Unlucky for him that he wasn't able to play on the 100% rye grass.

Wonderful post.

As some have mentioned already I would easily say Rosewall and Pancho Gonzalez. Some other possibilities are Pancho Segura, Tony Roche who at his best in my opinion was a greater grass court player than many Wimbledon champions, Ilie Nastase, Lendl of course.

I think Gonzalez and Rosewall probably would have won many Wimbledons if they were allowed to play during their best years.

If you compare Gonzalez to Andy Roddick I would be hard pressed to find any stroke of Roddick's that is superior to Gonzalez, even on serve. Roddick has a great serve but Gonzalez has arguably the best serve in the history of tennis.

 

[pc1]

So grass is simply defined as fast grass. Last I checked there was still grass at wimbledon. Also do you really believe great players like Roddick/Nadal/Djok would not have modified their game to win wimbledon on fast grass if they had to. My point is the argument is dumb. You blame Roddick for playing the style of play that works best for the surface. The top build their games around what they are playing on. Roddick's Wimbledon game has a lot to do with the wimbledon he was playing on. Same goes for Fed/Nadal. Just look at how guys like Lendl,Courier,Borg and Agassi to an extent switched up their game for grass. I'm sure had Roddick had quick grass he would have spent more times working on his net game and focus. Besides considering the grass doesn't seem like it is changing anytime soon in 50 years the whole concept of a grass court player might be different. It's not like wimbledon isn't grass anymore either. You are comparing apples to oranges as well. Just doing it in a different way, establishing what you feel should be the superior judgement of how it is supposed to be played on grass. Hell we stick Rafter in the surface now he probably struggles to make semis and quarters and has similar success to probably Jo-Willy and Feliciano on the surface. It goes both ways. Roddick however has played on his grass fantastic and the grass from 01 on.

Of course you're correct but how well could some of them adapt is debatable. I think the top players would adapt very well and Roddick just on serve alone would be competitive on the older grass.

By the way you may be selling Rafter a bit short, he had pretty decent groundies.

 

[SLD76]

Of course you're correct but how well could some of them adapt is debatable. I think the top players would adapt very well and Roddick just on serve alone would be competitive on the older grass.

By the way you may be selling Rafter a bit short, he had pretty decent groundies.

as I said, he didnt win his two USO titles serve and volleying alone.

 

[NadalAgassi]

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.

Agreed. Rosewall is the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon bar none and Lendl is probably second best.

 

[SLD76]

So grass is simply defined as fast grass. Last I checked there was still grass at wimbledon. Also do you really believe great players like Roddick/Nadal/Djok would not have modified their game to win wimbledon on fast grass if they had to. My point is the argument is dumb. You blame Roddick for playing the style of play that works best for the surface. The top build their games around what they are playing on. Roddick's Wimbledon game has a lot to do with the wimbledon he was playing on. Same goes for Fed/Nadal. Just look at how guys like Lendl,Courier,Borg and Agassi to an extent switched up their game for grass. I'm sure had Roddick had quick grass he would have spent more times working on his net game and focus. Besides considering the grass doesn't seem like it is changing anytime soon in 50 years the whole concept of a grass court player might be different. It's not like wimbledon isn't grass anymore either. You are comparing apples to oranges as well. Just doing it in a different way, establishing what you feel should be the superior judgement of how it is supposed to be played on grass. Hell we stick Rafter in the surface now he probably struggles to make semis and quarters and has similar success to probably Jo-Willy and Feliciano on the surface. It goes both ways. Roddick however has played on his grass fantastic and the grass from 01 on.

next time, use paragraphs, they are your friend.

second, if roddick wasnt quick enough to be able to serve volley on slower grass and had horrendous approach shots, what makes you think his game aside from his serve would do better on faster court?


my opinion is firm.

roddick was never a complete gc court player, but thats fine because he didnt have to be.

but that doesnt make him a great gc player imo. And when I say great, we are talking all time great gc players who never won Wimby yes?

we are not comparing him to the ancic's and karlovic's of the world, yes?

 

[pc1]

Agreed. Rosewall is the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon bar none and Lendl is probably second best.

I would think that Pancho Gonzalez is either one or two.

 

[pc1]

my opinion is firm.

roddick was never a complete gc court player, but thats fine because he didnt have to be.

but that doesnt make him a great gc player imo. And when I say great, we are talking all time great gc players who never won Wimby yes?

we are not comparing him to the ancic's and karlovic's of the world, yes?

I would tend to agree with you but then again I don't think of Roddick as a complete player in general. At his best he was in almost every match even if he didn't play well because of his serve. Of course in these times I would think players don't change their game that much for grass court tennis.

 

[fed_rulz]

Roddick HAS done well at the Aussie.
....

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

This!! mainly by the nostalgia-lovers who use Roddick's failures against Federer as a tool to discredit Federer and this era of players.

 

[fed_rulz]

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.

yeah right.. cedric pioline and malivai washington are lucky to be playing in the Federer era.

 

[fed_rulz]

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

better. no Federer ==> Roddick's chances are much higher. Roddick would've been more lethal in the 90s.

 

[Mustard]

better. no Federer ==> Roddick's chances are much higher. Roddick would've been more lethal in the 90s.

I doubt that very much with the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Agassi, Stich etc. playing at that time.

 

[fed_rulz]

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

by your definition, you have to admit that Agassi was a worse GC player than Roddick.

I think it's stupid to define greatness on a surface using subjective measures such as aesthetics or style of play.

 

[SLD76]

by your definition, you have to admit that Agassi was a worse GC player than Roddick.

I think it's stupid to define greatness on a surface using subjective measures such as aesthetics or style of play.

what? agassi return game was way better than roddick, and his ground game was stronger, forehands aside.

that said, agassi was lucky to win a wimby, goran having taken out pete, as you are right, andre wasnt much for
traditional gc tennis.

but the questions wasnt roddick vs agassi, was it?

 

[fed_rulz]

I doubt that very much with the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, Krajicek, Agassi, Stich etc. playing at that time.

sorry, but this is getting tired. Krajicek and Stich hardly showed up. I'd take Roddick over Ivanisevic purely over mental strength alone. The 2000 wimby that Sampras won was a joke field; you think Roddick wouldn't stand a chance in that one? Plus, Roddick has the tools to trouble Sampras (Sampras had trouble with guys who served big; and Roddick is as big as it comes, and Sampras is 1- 2 against Roddick -- i know, i know, post-prime Sampras and all..), so he might have snuck a win over sampras in the 90s.

 

[SLD76]

sorry, but this is getting tired. Krajicek and Stich hardly showed up. I'd take Roddick over Ivanisevic purely over mental strength alone. The 2000 wimby that Sampras won was a joke field; you think Roddick wouldn't stand a chance in that one? Plus, Roddick has the tools to trouble Sampras (Sampras had trouble with guys who served big; and Roddick is as big as it comes, and Sampras is 1- 2 against Roddick -- i know, i know, post-prime Sampras and all..), so he might have snuck a win over sampras in the 90s.

not with his raggedy return of serve he doesnt and subpar net game.

methinks pete would take him in straights.

agassi is a better returner and far better off the ground than andy( aside from the fh), how did he fare against pete?

 

[fed_rulz]

what? agassi return game was way better than roddick, and his ground game was stronger, forehands aside.

that said, agassi was lucky to win a wimby, goran having taken out pete, as you are right, andre wasnt much for
traditional gc tennis.

but the questions wasnt roddick vs agassi, was it?

true, but Roddick served better, volleyed better, moved better than Agassi. He clearly exceeds Agassi based on your criteria -- the ones you listed. Look, the question isn't about Roddick vs Agassi, but I disagree on dismissing Roddick as a GC great simply because he does not S & V. By your criteria, Nadal must be worst GC player ever to win wimbledon.

 

[fed_rulz]

not with his raggedy return of serve he doesnt and subpar net game.

methinks pete would take him in straights.

agassi is a better returner and far better off the ground than andy( aside from the fh), how did he fare against pete?

As I noted, Roddick is 2 - 1 over Sampras. What is your obsession with net game, as if that is a prerequisite for being great or successful ??? the 2nd most successful player of the 90s had ZERO net game, but other strengths, just like Roddick has other strengths to compensate for his mediocre net play.

 

[SLD76]

true, but Roddick served better, volleyed better, moved better than Agassi. He clearly exceeds Agassi based on your criteria -- the ones you listed. Look, the question isn't about Roddick vs Agassi, but I disagree on dismissing Roddick as a GC great simply because he does not S & V. By your criteria, Nadal must be worst GC player ever to win wimbledon.

whether or not he volleyed better than andre is debateable.

but what isnt debateable is that roddick was not a world class volleyer by any means.

nadal played in the conditions he found himself. dont get me started on 20 stroke rallies at wimbledon...

but the question wasnt roddick vs agassi or nadal.

the question is, best gc player who never won wimbledon.

imo, no, its not andy.

 

[fed_rulz]

whether or not he volleyed better than andre is debateable.

but what isnt debateable is that roddick was not a world class volleyer by any means.

No, it's not debatable whether Andy volleyed better than Andre. He did.

nadal played in the conditions he found himself. dont get me started on 20 stroke rallies at wimbledon...

but the question wasnt roddick vs agassi or nadal.

the question is, best gc player who never won wimbledon.

imo, no, its not andy.

And Roddick should've played in conditions that prevailed in the 90s?? if Nadal is a grass court great, then so is Roddick, and IMO, he has a strong case for being the best ever never to win wimbledon.

 

[pistolPete2012]

How the hell can Roddick be a grass court great? Seriously Rafter was a far superior grass court player and he couldn't even be considered a great on grass.

 

[fed_rulz]

How the hell can Roddick be a grass court great? Seriously Rafter was a far superior grass court player and he couldn't even be considered a great on grass.

based on what?

 

[pistolPete2012]

Better volley, better athlete, better returner. Then only thing Roddick had over him was his serve.

 

[fed_rulz]

Better volley, better athlete, better returner. Then only thing Roddick had over him was his serve.

Rafter vs Ivanisevic: Rafter has a better volley, is a better athlete and is a better returner. The only thing Ivanisevic had over him was his serve... Yet, no one would dispute the fact that Goran was a better grass court player than Rafter. but why the double standard for Roddick?

why do many Pete fanbois insist on using subjective opinions over factual data as their first resort is beyond me!!

 

[TeflonTom]

way too much love for andy itt

i like roddick a lot but he wasnt really a gc player. ppl sayin he woulda won wimby in the 90s need to get their hand off it. u didnt win wimby on fast grass without good volleys n movement, n roddick has neither

once roddick got off his serve he needed his fh to win points. if was playin in the 90s he woulda been a bigger threat at the uso.

Rafter vs Ivanisevic: Rafter has a better volley, is a better athlete and is a better returner. The only thing Ivanisevic had over him was his serve... Yet, no one would dispute the fact that Goran was a better grass court player than Rafter. but why the double standard for Roddick?

i actually think there is a pretty good argument to be made for rafter bein a better grasscourt player than ivanisevic.

but regardless, the difference between ivanisevic n roddick is that ivanisevic won the big one. ivanisevic also had much better volleys than roddick, and a much better serve

 

[pistolPete2012]

Rafter vs Ivanisevic: Rafter has a better volley, is a better athlete and is a better returner. The only thing Ivanisevic had over him was his serve... Yet, no one would dispute the fact that Goran was a better grass court player than Rafter. but why the double standard for Roddick?

why do many Pete fanbois insist on using subjective opinions over factual data as their first resort is beyond me!!

Come of it. Ivanisevic serves are a different level to Roddick.

 

[struggle]

hell, Lendl was a better grass courter than roddick, and he played on the fast stuff. never pulled it off, but had many more chances than andy.

 

[FD3S]

Come of it. Ivanisevic serves are a different level to Roddick.

Better combo of pace/spin, no doubt. Not sure if that makes up for his first serve not being as clutch as Roddick's, though - I mean, Agassi noted that when Goran was serving to stay in the final he opened up with two double faults. Say what you will about Roddick, but his serve usually stays fairly even throughout the course of a given match. I recall Goran's percentages fluctuating along with his mental state, and unlike Pete his second serve wasn't always good enough enough to bail him out.

 

[egn]

next time, use paragraphs, they are your friend.

second, if roddick wasnt quick enough to be able to serve volley on slower grass and had horrendous approach shots, what makes you think his game aside from his serve would do better on faster court?


my opinion is firm.

roddick was never a complete gc court player, but thats fine because he didnt have to be.

but that doesnt make him a great gc player imo. And when I say great, we are talking all time great gc players who never won Wimby yes?

we are not comparing him to the ancic's and karlovic's of the world, yes?

Paragraphs, capital letters, apostrophes in your contractions and basic sentence structure would you help you as well.

I still don't get your assumption that Roddick was not quick enough to serve and volley, the slow grass made it a lot harder in general because the returns that came back were more intense. I don't think Roddick's game was that awful for fast grass, looking at how he played in 2003-2004 Wimbledon I feel with his huge serve, aggressive ground strokes and even mediocre net play would have been good enough to do damage, and as I've stated I believe had he been in an era where he had to he would have worked on his volleys.

Besides all the all time great grass courters won Wimbledon, we are talking the best to not win it. Federer, Sampras, Becker, Borg, Edberg, McEnroe etc. are the all time greats on the surface. However in terms of players to not win Wimbledon since open era started I'd argue it is Roddick then Lendl as the best who did not win with Rafter third. However, that's my opinion. (I say Open Era just because Rosewall, Pancho because it's a different surface.) Either way it is what it is.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... 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...

Have we already forgotten 2009? How can you suggest that Roddick did not produce one of the highest levels of play At Wimbledon.

 

[roysid]

Yeah should be Roddick as never saw Rosewall play.

Don't forget Lendl too. His best chance was probably '89 when he beating Becker in semis easily. Then the rain came.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Better volley, better athlete, better returner. Then only thing Roddick had over him was his serve.

I'll agree that Rafter was probably a better returner and had one of the best volleys of all time. But you need to qualify what you mean by better athlete. Andy is/was one of the most athletic guys on the tour. Against most players not named Federer, Andy would often prevail when taken to 5 sets. His movement and creative shotmaking is also very athletic.

Roddick is more than just a serve, even on grass. While other players may have had some shots or skills that were superior to Roddick, his stats prove him to be one of the most effective on grass. Yes, more effective that Rafter, Lendl and others. In case you missed it, here are those grass stats:

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

^ 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

 

[ManFed]

I just believe that 2004 Wimbledon Andy Roddick could have easily beat 2012 Murray and mop the floor with 2008 Wimbledon Final Nadal.

 

[helloworld]

I just believe that 2004 Wimbledon Andy Roddick could have easily beat 2012 Murray and mop the floor with 2008 Wimbledon Final Nadal.

Roddick would definitely beat Murray, but not sure about 2008 Wimbledon Nadal. He beat Federer there in one of the highest quality match ever played between the two.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I just believe that 2004 Wimbledon Andy Roddick could have mop the floor with 2008 Wimbledon Final Nadal.

Continue your delusions.

Also LOL at people mentioning Roddicks's volleys and movement as his supposed edges on anyone that would push him to a Wimbledon title over champions past. What will be next, the Roddick return of serve is one of his weapons too.

 

[Gizo]

Have we already forgotten 2009? How can you suggest that Roddick did not produce one of the highest levels of play At Wimbledon.

I haven't forgotten 2009 at all. Roddick was excellent that year year at Wimbledon, and he was in 2003-2004 as well (in 2005 he played poorly though despite reaching the final).

However I followed both Lendl's career on grass and Roddick's, and in my opinion Lendl's standard of play on the surface was better. The level he produced when he beat Edberg at Wimbledon in 1987 and Becker in the 1990 Queen's final (labelled by Dan Maskell as the finest grass court performance he had ever seen) was beyond anything that Roddick ever produced on grass.

And what are Roddick's most impressive victories on grass anyway. 3 victories over Hewitt fair enough (2 of them when Hewitt was a long way past his peak), and one victory over Murray (and Murray still leads their grass court h2h 2-1. He lost his only match against Nadal on grass at Queen's in 2008.

Lendl has victories on grass over Becker, Edberg, McEnroe and Cash which comfortably tops that.

And Lendl won two titles on grass at Beckenham in 1990 and 1991. The ATP doesn't count those as official titles or as part of his record on the surface. However back in Lendl's era, unofficial tournaments, invitationals and exhos were far more important, and like Borg, Connors etc, his title count is heavily understated.

The draw/field at Beckenham that he came through in those years was certainly stronger than the one that Roddick came through at Eastbourne this year.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Lendl may very well have had some very good matches on grass but, according to his stats, it was his weakest surface. His FedEx Index for HC is .826, for clay it's .814, for grass it's only .764 (and overall Index is .818 ). Compare this to Roddick's Index of .802 for grass (but a mere .743 overall). Overall grass court W-L records:

85-21 ... Andy Roddick
81-25 ... Ivan Lendl

Different times, different grass and different opponents but the stats still show that overall, Roddick's game was effective on grass.
.

 

[kiki]

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

Nadal better than Goran on old grass? Roddick=Rafter???? Hewitt better than Krajicek? on grass???

Now I have heard it all.

 

[Gizo]

Lendl may very well have had some very good matches on grass but, according to his stats, it was his weakest surface. His FedEx Index for HC is .826, for clay it's .814, for grass it's only .764 (and overall Index is .818 ).

Doesn't matter that Lendl's weakest surface was grass (which was pretty common knowledge anyway without looking at stats). He was still incredible strong and effective on the surface anyway. Federer's weakest surface is clay but he has been much better on the surface that many players for whom it is their strongest surface, likewise Nadal and hard courts

Compare this to Roddick's Index of .802 for grass (but a mere .743 overall). Overall grass court W-L records:

85-21 ... Andy Roddick
81-25 ... Ivan Lendl

Different times, different grass and different opponents but the stats still show that overall, Roddick's game was effective on grass.
.

No-one is doubting that Roddick has been effective on grass. The question is whether he was better on grass than players like Lendl.

Stats are nice and all but they do not tell the whole story. You need to look beyond them and actually watch the tennis of the two players as well rather than just blindly following a couple of percentages and basing everything on one this.

That's easily done as matches involving the two players are readily available through various sources.

And again Lendl's stats don't count his results at Beckenham in Kent which was a good quality grass tournament where he beat dangerous opponents who were comfortable on the surface.

Roddick's best wins are on the surface against Agassi at Queen's in 2003, Hewitt at Queen's in 2004 and Murray at Wimbledon in 2009 were very good, but don't compare to Lendl's more impressive list of scalps on the surface.

And anyway Lendl's % success rate at the big W was 48-14 (77.42%), slightly better than Roddick's of 41-12 (77.36%), not that this is as important as actually watching the two players in action and analysing their respective standards of play.

It's a matter of opinion and all but the Lendl of the late 80s was better on the on grass that Roddick ever was I feel. His volleys were not actually McEnroe-esque but far better than Roddick's, his slice was better, as was his return of serve and overall groundstrokes on the surface.

 

[okdude1992]

yes i'm a biased roddick fan,
butwhat a bunch of ****s on this thread. your personal OPINON, and subjective "evidence" doesn't prove anything. roddick's stats speak for themselves. He is definately one of the best if not the best grasscourt players to never win wimbledon.

 

[merryinc]

yes i'm a biased roddick fan,
butwhat a bunch of ****s on this thread. your personal OPINON, and subjective "evidence" doesn't prove anything. roddick's stats speak for themselves. He is definately one of the best if not the best grasscourt players to never win wimbledon.

I'd have to agree. That epic final with Federer (the king of grass and the sport) at his absolute prime? enough said

 

[OriginalHockeytowner]

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).

Sorry I'm late to the party, you make an excellent point and a strong case for Andy.

But the illogical side of me wants to equate grass court player with serve and volleyer, even though that just isn't the case in our post-2001, 100% rye grass, compacted substrate world

 

[SLD76]

No, it's not debatable whether Andy volleyed better than Andre. He did.



And Roddick should've played in conditions that prevailed in the 90s?? if Nadal is a grass court great, then so is Roddick, and IMO, he has a strong case for being the best ever never to win wimbledon.

rofl...nadal has won two wimbledons..but his gc skills are overrated somewhat.


see lukas rosol. there is a reason nadal always struggles the first week of wimbledon when the grass actually plays like...grass.

 

[SLD76]

Have we already forgotten 2009? How can you suggest that Roddick did not produce one of the highest levels of play At Wimbledon.

it seems like a high level because fed's ground game was crap for most of that final. His serve and nerve won him that wimby.

andy did what he could, but if fed had been more his usual level off the ground, it wouldnt have been an epic five setter.

 

[SLD76]

Nadal better than Goran on old grass? Roddick=Rafter???? Hewitt better than Krajicek? on grass???

Now I have heard it all.

amazing, isnt it? lol

 

[roberttennis54]

To many people are thinking about the talent Goran had and what he could do, rather than what he did. Ultimately Goran was a choker and got tight in the big matches. The 98 and 92 finals are matches he should never have lost. The 92 final was even worse, because seconds later he could explain in detail why he lost.

Goran was not a great volleyer either. He was good, but not even better than Tsonga at the moment let alone Federer.

 

[SLD76]

To many people are thinking about the talent Goran had and what he could do, rather than what he did. Ultimately Goran was a choker and got tight in the big matches. The 98 and 92 finals are matches he should never have lost. The 92 final was even worse, because seconds later he could explain in detail why he lost.

Goran was not a great volleyer either. He was good, but not even better than Tsonga at the moment let alone Federer.

and tsonga is still way way way better than roddick.

 

[roberttennis54]

and tsonga is still way way way better than roddick.

At volleying? Yes. On grass no. You seem to have this idea, that to be a great grass courter you need a traditional grass game. That's obviously not the case.

Your argument is also inconsistent, because you put Agassi above Roddick, though Roddick played a more traditional grass court game than him. The same goes for Hewitt, despite being a very capable volleyer, when he won Wimbledon he did not serve and volley once in the final.