Is Roddick one of the most underrated players ever

[martinezownsclay]

I am not even a fan of the guy, and I honestly don't like his playing style. Still without Federer he likely has 5-8 slams today. And usually I am not a fan of these sort of "what if" arguments or what if without another player, but there has probably been no one player ever whose career has been so affected by another player. Not even Federer with Nadal, which would be one of my next choices, or Agassi with Sampras.

People are happy to elevate Federer on clay with "without Nadal" hypotheticals, but if that is so one should be able to do the same thing for Roddick in general.

I am not saying he should be rated as a 5-8 slam winning calibre player, but I do think he should be seen as on par with many 2 or 3 slam winners. Literally the only way he doesn't wind up as a multiple slam winner is to have his own prime/peak coincide with Federer, who is not only one of the GOATs, and probably the most dominant player ever at his peak in 2004-2007, but the ultimate bad match up for Roddick as well.

 

[buscemi]

I think I've run the "what if Roddick were born 10 years earlier" scenario before, and it didn't come out especially well for Roddick. If he's born on August 30, 1972, he's competing for Majors from 1993-1999 instead of 2003-2009 (you could also maybe add the 1991 and 1992 U.S. Opens).

Under this scenario, if we're assuming Roddick's best chances at Majors are at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open:

-at Wimbledon, he has to beat Sampras + probably one or two other good/great grass court players to win every year except for 1996, with redlining Krajicek;​

-at the U.S. Open, it's Sampras or Agassi + probably one or two other good/great grass court players, except 1997-1998 with Rafter​

So, maybe Roddick wins one of the Rafter years at the U.S. Open if he's playing well that year, and maybe he can snatch one the weaker Australian Opens if he's playing well that year.

I don't know, under this scenario, I see Roddick winning 0-2 Majors, pretty similar to his original timeline.

 

[ollinger]

Amazing Roddick could even see the ball, the way sweat poured off the bill of his cap. His current place in tennis history seems about right, well regarded, HOF, top 10 player for about a decade.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think I've run the "what if Roddick were born 10 years earlier" scenario before, and it didn't come out especially well for Roddick. If he's born on August 30, 1972, he's competing for Majors from 1993-1999 instead of 2003-2009 (you could also maybe add the 1991 and 1992 U.S. Opens).

Under this scenario, if we're assuming Roddick's best chances at Majors are at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open:

-at Wimbledon, he has to beat Sampras + probably one or two other good/great grass court players to win every year except for 1996, with redlining Krajicek;​

-at the U.S. Open, it's Sampras or Agassi + probably one or two other good/great grass court players, except 1997-1998 with Rafter​

So, maybe Roddick wins one of the Rafter years at the U.S. Open if he's playing well that year, and maybe he can snatch one the weaker Australian Opens if he's playing well that year.

I don't know, under this scenario, I see Roddick winning 0-2 Majors, pretty similar to his original timeline.

I agree at Wimbledon, particularly when he doesn't match up well with Sampras.

However the Open there are quite a few years Sampras (or Agassi) did not win. I am not saying Roddick wins all those years of course, but he could atleast fight for those, if they happened to coincide with good years of form for him (which there are many). And Sampras had a lot of near losses at the Open, so it is even possible (not certain) he has 1 or 2 more with altered draws.

And the Australian, despite being clearly only his 3rd best slam in terms of ability/playing level was even more Open. Sampras only won it twice, Courier and Edberg who were formidable there were dunzo post 93, and the Agassi era there was 99-2003 apart from his 95 win he did nothing before that.

And of course there are many possible eras he could wind up in, not just this one, but even this one he wins atleast a 2nd major I believe. Not saying he would win the hypothetical 5-8 he wins without Federer in any era neccessarily, just that it still does speak to his ability and consistency as a top player that he would likely win 5-8 without Federr.

 

[abmk]

I think I've run the "what if Roddick were born 10 years earlier" scenario before, and it didn't come out especially well for Roddick. If he's born on August 30, 1972, he's competing for Majors from 1993-1999 instead of 2003-2009 (you could also maybe add the 1991 and 1992 U.S. Opens).

Under this scenario, if we're assuming Roddick's best chances at Majors are at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open:

-at Wimbledon, he has to beat Sampras + probably one or two other good/great grass court players to win every year except for 1996, with redlining Krajicek;​

-at the U.S. Open, it's Sampras or Agassi + probably one or two other good/great grass court players, except 1997-1998 with Rafter​

So, maybe Roddick wins one of the Rafter years at the U.S. Open if he's playing well that year, and maybe he can snatch one the weaker Australian Opens if he's playing well that year.

I don't know, under this scenario, I see Roddick winning 0-2 Majors, pretty similar to his original timeline.

Roddick would have a shot vs Sampras at Wim in a year like 98/00. Wouldn't rule out 93 completely either when Pete didn't look the fittest.
At USO, would definitely take one of the 2 USOs that Rafter took. would have a decent shot if Sampras was playing like in USO 96 QF. a decent shot at USO 99 if Todd Martin could take Agassi to 5 sets in the final
a decent shot at an AO like 98/99.

so all in all, I'd say 2-3 slams.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Roddick would have a shot vs Sampras at Wim in a year like 98/00. Wouldn't rule out 93 either when Pete didn't look the fittest.
At USO, would definitely take one of the 2 USOs that Rafter one, would have a decent shot if Sampras was playing like in USO 96 QF. a decent shot at USO 99 if Todd Martin could take Agassi to 5 sets in the final
a decent shot at an AO like 98/99.

so all in all, I'd say 2-3 slams.

Agassi is quite a bad match up for Roddick though, maybe worse than Sampras. Just looking at their matches, Roddick's only wins is 1 win in 2003 on super fast grass, and even that he had to save a match point. He lost to Agassi again in their final meeting in 2004 when Roddick was at his all time peak, and Agassi while still formidable on hard courts was 34. So seeing Roddick ever beating say 95 or 99 Agassi on hard courts is hard to see for me. He would hope Agassi is taken out in the draw somewhere else.

 

[abmk]

Agassi is quite a bad match up for Roddick though, maybe worse than Sampras. Just looking at their matches, Roddick's only wins is 1 win in 2003 on super fast grass, and even that he had to save a match point. He lost to Agassi again in their final meeting in 2004 when Roddick was at his all time peak, and Agassi while still formidable on hard courts was 34. So seeing Roddick ever beating say 95 or 99 Agassi on hard courts is hard to see for me. He would hope Agassi is taken out in the draw somewhere else.

I don't think Agassi is that bad a matchup for Roddick, though not an easy one. Once Roddick was clicking in 2003, it was 1 all vs Agassi in h2h
the Cincy match in 2004 was even closer than Queens 03 level wise.
Rest of the matches were all like pre-prime Roddick in 00/02 or clay (not really that relevant for Roddick)

I didn't mention Roddick beating 95 Agassi.
Only 99 Agassi whom Todd Martin took to 5 sets in the final (not earlier round). its a possibility.
Also beating a peaked early (aka gone down in form) agassi in USO 95 isn't ruled out completely (anyways not relevant as Sampras was there to stop Roddick at that USO)
Roddick's not beating USO 94 or AO 95 Agassi though.

one thing Roddick does better than most of the other big servers/SnVers that Agassi dominated or clearly got better off is getting in a higher% of first serves in, so Agassi has lesser looks at 2nd serves.

don't think Sampras is a bad matchup for Roddick per se either. Just a better player.

 

[buscemi]

However the Open there are quite a few years Sampras (or Agassi) did not win. I am not saying Roddick wins all those years of course, but he could atleast fight for those, if they happened to coincide with good years of form for him (which there are many). And Sampras had a lot of near losses at the Open, so it is even possible (not certain) he has 1 or 2 more with altered draws

From 1993-1999, the U.S. Open winners were:

1993: Sampras​

1994: Agassi​

1995: Sampras​

1996: Sampras​

1997: Rafter​

1998: Rafter​

1999: Agassi​

1998, of course, was the year that Rafter completed the Canada/Cincinnati/U.S. Open triple (like Roddick in 2003).

I'd tab 1997 as the best chance for Roddick to win the U.S. Open.

 

[buscemi]

Roddick would have a shot vs Sampras at Wim in a year like 98/00.

I guess it depends on how literal we're being. If Roddick is 10 years older, 1998 Wimbledon was his 2008 campaign and 2000 Wimbledon was his 2010 campaign. In that event, he's not winning in either 1998 or 2000.

If we assume Roddick was in better form, that's still really tough. In 1998, he might have to beat Krajicek, Ivanišević, and Sampras in the QF/SF/F.

In 2000, he might have to beat Agassi, Rafter, and Sampras in the QF/SF/F.

Of course, who knows what the draws would have been like, but those would be some tough Wimbledons to win.

 

[RS]

Hewitt from the same era is more underrated than Andy R to me

 

[FD3S]

Tweaking one of my old posts for this - given that Roddick seems to be overrated and underrated in fairly equal measure nowadays, I'd say he comes in about where he should be given his career results.

Some people have said that Roddick's a walking example of the 'weak era', that without his serve he wouldn't have made it out of Challengers, that they've seen 4.0's volley better than he does (and yes, all arguments I've seen and heard over the years). No. His career numbers and highlights speak for themselves, and they say that aspiring to be a better tennis player than Andy Roddick is to aspire to lofty things indeed.

On the other hand, some people have also claimed Roddick would have cleaned up the 90's, or that without Fed he would have been an absolute lock for 8+ more majors or some other ludicrous number (also arguments I remember seeing). No. He always had weaknesses that were exploitable by the top guys, and while I would happily agree that while it's very possible - I'd go so far as to say probable - he wins at least a few more without Roger his absence would not mean that Roddick automatically jumps into the GOAT debate.

Andy Roddick was a excellent player who maximized the talent he got in spite of the fact he was never going to be an all-time great like Sampras or Agassi. His game always had noticeable holes no matter what incarnation of him you watched but his strengths were such that if he played at his best the racquet would be taken out of his opponent's hands more often than not.

 

[NatF]

Roddick is probably a 1-3 slam caliber player who was roadblocked by a both a GOAT level player and a bad match-up and kept at 1.

 

[Herald]

I am not even a fan of the guy, and I honestly don't like his playing style. Still without Federer he likely has 5-8 slams today. And usually I am not a fan of these sort of "what if" arguments or what if without another player, but there has probably been no one player ever whose career has been so affected by another player. Not even Federer with Nadal, which would be one of my next choices, or Agassi with Sampras.

People are happy to elevate Federer on clay with "without Nadal" hypotheticals, but if that is so one should be able to do the same thing for Roddick in general.

I am not saying he should be rated as a 5-8 slam winning calibre player, but I do think he should be seen as on par with many 2 or 3 slam winners. Literally the only way he doesn't wind up as a multiple slam winner is to have his own prime/peak coincide with Federer, who is not only one of the GOATs, and probably the most dominant player ever at his peak in 2004-2007, but the ultimate bad match up for Roddick as well.

This is what makes the 03-07 era so frightening. Just stand back and repeat this to yourself out loud a few times and it will settle in on you too: Roddick on the level of Courier or even Agassi! Yikes!

 

[Crazy Finn]

Roddick was a very good player, but he was never going to be a generational player. There was always players as good as him, not to mention better - even in his peak seasons. Obviously, he was have had less competition with Federer out of the picture, but Roddick lost to plenty of players at slams that weren't Roger as well - such luminaries as Joachim Johannsson and Rainer Schüttler, and Richard Gasquet - not to mention equally good (if not superior) players like Hewitt and Safin. No Roger would have presented opportunities for other players as well besides Roddick.

By the time 2006-7 rolls around, Nadal is better, and a few years later Novak arrives. With no Federer around, those guys are winning more, Agassi probably is even more successful in his late career and Safin and Hewitt probably snag a couple for themselves as well.

Roddick is rated exactly right. A very good, not great player who was worthy of winning a slam, but not really at the level of an ATG - with or without Roger.

That's the thing about All Time Greats - they win and are great regardless of their competition. Did Becker cease winning when Edberg challenged him? Agassi still managed to win even though he had to contend with Pete for the most part. Connors still won slams even when Borg and McEnroe showed up.

Roddick even had some years from 2001-2003 where he was getting to quarterfinals and semis before Federer emerged in what some people (especially on Tennis Talk) called the one of the weaker eras in tennis, the early 2000's. And he managed a single slam. Sure, he was young, but often actual ATGs manage a slam win in their late teens (Connors, Mac, Rafa, Becker, Edberg, etc).

 

[biaggi35]

Probably would have won 3 or 4 Slams if his peak did not coincide with Federer's peak. You are overestimating Sampras and Agassi - Andre wasn't even there for most of the 90s and Pete had suffered losses to lesser players than Roddick outside Wimby. Further, it's not like they are gonna beat Roddick 100 % of the times they play, like Federer practically did... A Roddick - Sampras match-up on fast grass would be interesting, considering Federer needed 4-5 hours and 5 long sets to break him once on a slower grass in '09.

Roddick was also really good in Melbourne and a title contender even during the rebound ace era, having reached 4 semifinals between '03 and '09 (2 of them, again, were losses to Federer). So, I would say even with his liabilities (not the best mover and a solid, but limited backhand) he would have won more than someone like Rafter.

 

[Herald]

Probably would have won 3 or 4 Slams if his peak did not coincide with Federer's peak. You are overestimating Sampras and Agassi - Andre wasn't even there for most of the 90s and Pete had suffered losses to lesser players than Roddick outside Wimby. Further, it's not like they are gonna beat Roddick 100 % of the times they play, like Federer practically did... A Roddick - Sampras match-up on fast grass would be interesting, considering Federer needed 4-5 hours and 5 long sets to break him once on a slower grass in '09.

Roddick was also really good in Melbourne and a title contender even during the rebound ace era, having reached 4 semifinals between '03 and '09 (2 of them, again, were losses to Federer). So, I would say even with his liabilities (not the best mover and a solid, but limited backhand) he would have won more than someone like Rafter.

Andre was "gone" for 1997. He won the olympics in 96, and jumped to no.6 in the world in '98. The myth that he was absent in the 90s needs to be dispelled.
Pete lost to "lesser players" due to polarized surfaces, and Rodger would absolutely do the same in similar conditions.
If the 90s had homogenization and every surface played very similar to grass, then Pete would dominate Roddick as much as Rodger did. Under actual 90s conditions, he would probably do the same. Remember, Pete had a 12-4 record against Rafter who is a superior player to Roddick.

There is really no reason to think Roddick would do better in the Sampras-Agassi era. With polarized surfaces, his poor explosive movement would be as major a liability as it was in his actual era. His weak backhand wouldn't cut it on passing shots, and if his forehand went AWOL after just 2 years at the top, then he would be gone without a trace. Obviously he has no net game to take it to the top players and cover up these glaring weaknesses.

Between Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Lendl on his last legs, Rafter, Kafelnikov, and floaters like Kracijek and Goran and Stich and Philippoussis, and all the limitations in his game, he would be very lucky to squeeze a slam win in, and that's being generous.

Roddick was in the perfect era to maximize his success. The problem is he just wasn't good or (more likely) mentally strong enough to get through the major hurdle in his way. Put him in any prior era, and he probably does worse than the early 2000s.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Between Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Lendl on his last legs, Rafter, Kafelnikov, and floaters like Kracijek and Goran and Stich and Philippoussis, and all the limitations in his game, he would be very lucky to squeeze a slam win in, and that's being generous.

^ This x 1000. Roddick was a heavy-footed, one-note, joke-at-the-net player.

 

[Herald]

^ This x 1000. Roddick was a heavy-footed-footed, one-note, joke-at-the-net player.

Afraid so. To his credit, he was a hard worker, and I really think the 2009 version of himself was a realization of his potential. Fit, acceptably athletic, acceptable backhand capable of rallying and going up the line, not horrible when putting away at net (except for THAT volley of course). If he'd started that way in 2003 and went up, perhaps he would have gotten a slam win over Rodge and been in the 2 slam club with Hewitt and Safin.

I hear lots of comparisons with Roddick to Courier which is problematic for me. Courier was much smarter, more athletic, more competitive, more mentally strong, significantly better at net and had a much better forehand that didn't break down. Courier's version of Roddick's "he was unlucky and could have won 4 without Rodge" is "he was unlucky and could have won 8 without PETE"

 

[buscemi]

Probably would have won 3 or 4 Slams if his peak did not coincide with Federer's peak. You are overestimating Sampras and Agassi - Andre wasn't even there for most of the 90s and Pete had suffered losses to lesser players than Roddick outside Wimby. Further, it's not like they are gonna beat Roddick 100 % of the times they play, like Federer practically did... A Roddick - Sampras match-up on fast grass would be interesting, considering Federer needed 4-5 hours and 5 long sets to break him once on a slower grass in '09.

Roddick was also really good in Melbourne and a title contender even during the rebound ace era, having reached 4 semifinals between '03 and '09 (2 of them, again, were losses to Federer). So, I would say even with his liabilities (not the best mover and a solid, but limited backhand) he would have won more than someone like Rafter.

The challenge is to pick a Major that Roddick was likely to win if he were 10 years younger. You noted that a Roddick-Sampras matchup on fast grass would be interesting. But that's not the only match Roddick would need to win to capture a Wimbledon title in the 1990s. Take 1994: Roddick might need to beat Ivanišević/Becker/Sampras in the QF/SF/F. Or 1995: Roddick might have to beat Agassi/Becker/Sampras.

 

[abmk]

I guess it depends on how literal we're being. If Roddick is 10 years older, 1998 Wimbledon was his 2008 campaign and 2000 Wimbledon was his 2010 campaign. In that event, he's not winning in either 1998 or 2000.

If we assume Roddick was in better form, that's still really tough. In 1998, he might have to beat Krajicek, Ivanišević, and Sampras in the QF/SF/F.

In 2000, he might have to beat Agassi, Rafter, and Sampras in the QF/SF/F.

Of course, who knows what the draws would have been like, but those would be some tough Wimbledons to win.

I was speaking in general, but to be fair, you would probably have to replace someone in the 90s with Roddick, like say Rafter/Goran (somewhat similar calibre player atleast).

Also even without that, he'd probably have to face 2 of those players, not all 3.

 

[abmk]

Roddick even had some years from 2001-2003 where he was getting to quarterfinals and semis before Federer emerged in what some people (especially on Tennis Talk) called the one of the weaker eras in tennis, the early 2000's. And he managed a single slam. Sure, he was young, but often actual ATGs manage a slam win in their late teens (Connors, Mac, Rafa, Becker, Edberg, etc).

Roddick hit his prime in 03, when he was 20 and half or sth.
Connors didn't win a slam in his teens.
neither did Fed, Djokovic, Lendl, Agassi

Roddick wouldn't be an ATG in any decent era anyways. 3-4 slams tops.

 

[buscemi]

I was speaking in general, but to be fair, you would probably have to replace someone in the 90s with Roddick, like say Rafter/Goran (somewhat similar calibre player atleast).

Also even without that, he'd probably have to face 2 of those players, not all 3.

Sometimes, even with taking out Rafter or Goran, he'd have to face 4. Let's look at Wimbledon 1993. He might have needed to beat:

Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Courier​

Stich/Becker/Sampras/Courier​

 

[bigbadboaz]

I don't like the "without so-and-so he would have" premise in any situation. In sport, you are tasked with beating what happens to be out there in the field - especially if you're trying to build a case for historical status. Every era has its particular roadblocks, anyway.

Besides, if you're really interested in evaluating a player it's not that hard to look at the substance of what he actually did vs. counting checkmarks. This speaks to how badly we've all fallen into the Slam-counting trap nowadays more than anything.

I also think Roddick's gotten pretty much exactly the credit he should get - and always did - for what his career actually was. He was perennial top ten - and always looked at as a major threat - for about an entire decade. He won a USO and got to no. 1. He had huge weapons but couldn't quite get over the hump as many times as he'd been expected to as a young prospect.

He's a 1-Slam winner who really should have been a 2. If he gets that Wimbledon it's a fitting capstone given what expectations for him always were, but even with that result only being a final the career as a whole really looks much the same.

 

[biaggi35]

The challenge is to pick a Major that Roddick was likely to win if he were 10 years younger. You noted that a Roddick-Sampras matchup on fast grass would be interesting. But that's not the only match Roddick would need to win to capture a Wimbledon title in the 1990s. Take 1994: Roddick might need to beat Ivanišević/Becker/Sampras in the QF/SF/F. Or 1995: Roddick might have to beat Agassi/Becker/Sampras.

He would be a contender in any Wimbledon from 1994 till 2000. Don't forget guys like Washington, Woodbridge, Stoltenberg, Pioline and Voltchkov were reaching last 4/finals in that period. It's not like he is going to face Becker, Rafter, Agassi and Sampras all the time in a row to get there. The only consistent force was Sampras - Rafter had good Wimbledons only in 99-01, Agassi was hit or miss in the 90s (few good runs, but also some shock losses), Becker was gone after 1995. As a matter of fact, I can't see how Goran (who reached 4 finals and multiple semifinals) is a better grass court player than Roddick when you look at their overall games, mentality and stamina/athleticism. IMO, Henman would have been a difficult match-up for Roddick, but sadly they never met at SW19 or elsewhere on grass in the 00s.
Don't forget Roddick would be also a contender in Melbourne, especially in 1996, 1998 and 1999 - he had great tournaments in '03, '05 and '07 on the old rebound ace, so it was ok for his game.
At the US Open he would be more than capable of beating Rafter (one of my favourite players in the 90s, but his game from the back of the court was a tad soft and it's not like he could return like Federer) in both 1997 and 1998 and why not have a go at Andre in 1999, considering Todd Martin got him to 5?

 

[biaggi35]

You are also forgetting that the so-called 'big weaknesses' in Roddick's game were so evident due to the generally slower courts and mostly because they were exploited by the big 3 (who are out of this world and non-comparable to anyone in the 90s). It's not like Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker and even Sampras didn't have any liabilities in their game, but it was easier back then to just rely on your strengths and finish rallies in fewer strokes, which is perfectly suitable to Roddick's power style and temperament. Actually, he played that kind of tennis in '03 and '04 and it got him to No. 1, as we all recall, whereas later on the evolution of the 'percentage' tennis and the slower surfaces led to his progressive demise.

 

[bluetrain4]

I think Roddick was a great player, but I don't "without X" elevate players. Players are of the era they're a part of. Their legacy is grounded on the people around them and whether they can or cannot beat them.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Roddick hit his prime in 03, when he was 20 and half or sth.
Connors didn't win a slam in his teens.
neither did Fed, Djokovic, Lendl, Agassi

Roddick wouldn't be an ATG in any decent era anyways. 3-4 slams tops.

Ah, I thought Connors was younger than he actually was in 1973. Good catch.

Plenty of ATG wait until later to start winning slams, just as Roddick did - as you point out. I simply said often ATG win one in their teens. The field was fairly open from 2000ish-2004 for Roddick, but he wasn't there yet - there were better players. When he peaked, there were better players - or at least on along with several at least as good. A few years later, there were more even better players.

Your assessment of 3-4 slams tops sounds good. No Fed would have benefited him, but also Agassi, Safin, Hewitt and possibly a few others.

 

[TTMR]

I am not sure how well Roddick would do in faster conditions against big servers. He was a terrible returner and generally would get destroyed against big servers, even though he was a big server himself. I notice in a lot of his famous matches he is out-aced by lesser servers than himself. That suggests especially bad return game. I'd say his max is 3 slams if he were born 10 years earlier.

 

[buscemi]

He would be a contender in any Wimbledon from 1994 till 2000. Don't forget guys like Washington, Woodbridge, Stoltenberg, Pioline and Voltchkov were reaching last 4/finals in that period. It's not like he is going to face Becker, Rafter, Agassi and Sampras all the time in a row to get there. The only consistent force was Sampras - Rafter had good Wimbledons only in 99-01, Agassi was hit or miss in the 90s (few good runs, but also some shock losses), Becker was gone after 1995. As a matter of fact, I can't see how Goran (who reached 4 finals and multiple semifinals) is a better grass court player than Roddick when you look at their overall games, mentality and stamina/athleticism. IMO, Henman would have been a difficult match-up for Roddick, but sadly they never met at SW19 or elsewhere on grass in the 00s.

I'll put Roddick in the third quarter every year for consistency's sake. Here's his path each year:

1994: Ivanišević/Becker/Sampras​

1995: Ivanišević/Sampras/Becker​

1996: Henman/Martin/Washington/Krajicek​

1997: Stich/Henman/Pioline/Sampras​

1998: Ivanišević/Krajicek/Sampras​

1999: Kuerten/Agassi/Rafter/Sampras​

2000: Rafter/Agassi/Sampras​

 

[abmk]

Sometimes, even with taking out Rafter or Goran, he'd have to face 4. Let's look at Wimbledon 1993. He might have needed to beat:

Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Courier​

Stich/Becker/Sampras/Courier​

not possible given the seedings. 2 or 3 of them still. definitely not 4.

 

[buscemi]

not possible given the seedings. 2 or 3 of them still. definitely not 4.

Let's say Roddick is the #9 seed in 1993 instead of Krajicek (behind Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Ivanišević, Stich, Lendl, and Agassi). His path is Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Courier.

 

[abmk]

Let's say Roddick is the #9 seed in 1993 instead of Krajicek (behind Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Ivanišević, Stich, Lendl, and Agassi). His path is Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Courier.

Roddick was seeded #5 in Wim 03. don't think he'd be seeded below 8 in Wim 93 either if pulled back 10 years ago. even if competition was tougher back then.

 

[80s New Wave]

I think he is underrated a bit, his timing was bad as he was kind of viewed as taking the torch from Sampras but in reality he never had that kind of ability outside of the serve. By 2007 after constantly losing to Federer it felt like he resigned himself to be a consistent player who won the matches he was supposed to win but not a threat at the slams, outside of 2009 Wimbledon of course.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think he is underrated a bit, his timing was bad as he was kind of viewed as taking the torch from Sampras but in reality he never had that kind of ability outside of the serve. By 2007 after constantly losing to Federer it felt like he resigned himself to be a consistent player who won the matches he was supposed to win but not a threat at the slams, outside of 2009 Wimbledon of course.

Yes that is the worst thing for his perception and one reason he is underrated along with winning "only" 1 major, which is mostly due to Federer.

He came right after Sampras and Agassi, and particularly with his huge serve and some similarities in his playing style to Sampras (note I said some, not implying he is mini Sampras or their games are exactly the same) he was hyped to be the next Sampras. Filling Sampras's shoes or even Agassi's shoes was always going to be a huge ask, and he is inevitably compared to them. Compared to everything else that has come since him in American tennis he is a god, but he was the first top player after the decades of glory days of US tennis with Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Sampras, Agassi.

 

[buscemi]

Roddick was seeded #5 in Wim 03. don't think he'd be seeded below 8 in Wim 93 either if pulled back 10 years ago. even if competition was tougher back then.

Roddick was seeded #5 in 2003 behind Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, and Federer.

As noted, the top 8 seeds in 1993 were Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Ivanišević, Stich, Lendl, and Agassi. Agassi, the #8 seed, was the defending champion.

I have a hard time seeing the 2003 version of Roddick ranked ahead of any of these eight players.

 

[abmk]

Roddick was seeded #5 in 2003 behind Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, and Federer.

As noted, the top 8 seeds in 1993 were Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Becker, Ivanišević, Stich, Lendl, and Agassi. Agassi, the #8 seed, was the defending champion.

I have a hard time seeing the 2003 version of Roddick ranked ahead of any of these eight players.

Lendl, Becker in that period (2nd half of 92-first half of 93) didn't really do better than Roddick in 2nd half of 2002-first half of 2003.
Atleast no slam semi for either of them unlike Roddick in AO 03.
And Roddick did win a great QF vs El Ayanoui there. So can't really question his competition for that AO.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick was a very good player, but he was never going to be a generational player. There was always players as good as him, not to mention better - even in his peak seasons. Obviously, he was have had less competition with Federer out of the picture, but Roddick lost to plenty of players at slams that weren't Roger as well - such luminaries as Joachim Johannsson and Rainer Schüttler, and Richard Gasquet - not to mention equally good (if not superior) players like Hewitt and Safin. No Roger would have presented opportunities for other players as well besides Roddick.

By the time 2006-7 rolls around, Nadal is better, and a few years later Novak arrives. With no Federer around, those guys are winning more, Agassi probably is even more successful in his late career and Safin and Hewitt probably snag a couple for themselves as well.

Roddick is rated exactly right. A very good, not great player who was worthy of winning a slam, but not really at the level of an ATG - with or without Roger.

That's the thing about All Time Greats - they win and are great regardless of their competition. Did Becker cease winning when Edberg challenged him? Agassi still managed to win even though he had to contend with Pete for the most part. Connors still won slams even when Borg and McEnroe showed up.

Roddick even had some years from 2001-2003 where he was getting to quarterfinals and semis before Federer emerged in what some people (especially on Tennis Talk) called the one of the weaker eras in tennis, the early 2000's. And he managed a single slam. Sure, he was young, but often actual ATGs manage a slam win in their late teens (Connors, Mac, Rafa, Becker, Edberg, etc).

Roddick wasn't always consistent and had some bad losses, but it can't be denied that he was denied 3+ slams for Federer when he was playing very well.

 

[jrepac]

You can argue back and forth on the caliber of Roddick's skills and overall game, but Fed was his kryptonite, without question. Easily he wins maybe 2-3 more slams w/Fed out of the way

 

[Crazy Finn]

Roddick wasn't always consistent and had some bad losses, but it can't be denied that he was denied 3+ slams for Federer when he was playing very well.

Maybe.

The argument that the Roddick-stans make is that since Roddick lost in the slam to Federer, that he would have automatically won without Roger there. That might have happened, but minus Roger, the whole draw - not to mention tour - would have been different. It's hard to predict how things would have played out. Roddick struggled against Hewitt for most of their primes and barely beat a hobbled Hewitt in 2009 Wimby as I recall. Safin was pretty even with Roddick, I think. Certainly Safin was inconsistent, I don't think Roger's absence changes that.

Anyway, you might be right. I won't go that far, because I'm pretty low on Roddick myself. I never got sick of watching Federer dismantle poor Andy in slams. It was one of the delights of my tennis watching life.

 

[abmk]

Maybe.

The argument that the Roddick-stans make is that since Roddick lost in the slam to Federer, that he would have automatically won without Roger there. That might have happened, but minus Roger, the whole draw - not to mention tour - would have been different. It's hard to predict how things would have played out. Roddick struggled against Hewitt for most of their primes and barely beat a hobbled Hewitt in 2009 Wimby as I recall. Safin was pretty even with Roddick, I think. Certainly Safin was inconsistent, I don't think Roger's absence changes that.

Anyway, you might be right. I won't go that far, because I'm pretty low on Roddick myself. I never got sick of watching Federer dismantle poor Andy in slams. It was one of the delights of my tennis watching life.

Hewitt-Roddick was only 3-2 Hewitt in 04-05.
Hewitt winning in YEC 04, AO 05, IW 05
Roddick winning Queens 04, Cincy 05.
While past prime Hewitt took Roddick to 5 in Wim 09 QF, pre-prime Roddick took Hewitt to 5 in USO 01 QF. Both played well in the respective matches, though not prime level.

Hewitt has edge prime to prime, but it isn't a big one.

 

[Crazy Finn]

Hewitt-Roddick was only 3-2 Hewitt in 04-05.
Hewitt winning in YEC 04, AO 05, IW 05
Roddick winning Queens 04, Cincy 05.
While past prime Hewitt took Roddick to 5 in Wim 09 QF, pre-prime Roddick took Hewitt to 5 in USO 01 QF. Both played well in the respective matches, though not prime level.

Hewitt has edge prime to prime, but it isn't a big one.

Indeed - perhaps "struggled" is the wrong word. Some people (not you) portray Roddick as automatically dominating minus Roger, but I just don't see it. My point isn't that Hewitt is markedly better than Roddick (he's not) but that Roddick isn't better than the other players at the top. He's about at the same level.

 

[FD3S]

Indeed - perhaps "struggled" is the wrong word. Some people (not you) portray Roddick as automatically dominating minus Roger, but I just don't see it. My point isn't that Hewitt is markedly better than Roddick (he's not) but that Roddick isn't better than the other players at the top. He's about at the same level.

While there's clearly no guarantee he'd dominate without Roger (wayyyyy too many variables in that equation, though if I had to gamble on him having a better or worse career without Fed I'd feel a lot safer laying down money on better*) I'd say that Roddick at the peak of his powers was a decent cut above the rest of the tour, if not quite up to the challenge of facing down Federer. Once he took no. 1, he didn't drop below no. 3 until early-mid 2005, and even then he still hovered in the top 3-5 range until early 2006 (long after he'd left the Gilbert game plan behind). Guys like Hewitt and Ferrero would float around that territory too but they definitely had more variance in their ranking changes than Roddick did. (Rafa, of course, very quickly became Rafa). Week to week, his power game when he was at the very top was demonstrably very effective against the field at large even if certain matchups (Fed, Hewitt, Agassi) could blunt it on an individual H2H basis.

*Federer was stopping Roddick in quarters, semis, and finals for his entire career - the only time they met outside the last 8 of a tournament barring their WTF RR encounters was their final match in Miami (R32). Given how consistently deep he'd go and his record against the rest of the tennis world in general it's tough to firmly assert that peak Roddick wouldn't have a good shot of converting at least a few of those tournaments even if nothing is set in stone.