Jack Sock is Stevie Johnson with a backhand

Fabresque

Fabresque

Legend
The similarities in their games are crazy. Only differences come with Sock hitting his forehand with more spin to make it a heavier shot, but even Johnson has a heavy topspin forehand. Only key difference is that Sock has a backhand, where Stevie does not.

Both products of the Tennis Factory of America (TFA), proudly creating top 40 players since 2012! Factory fresh, same techniques and same ideology! Got a defective one? One that actually hits with variety and has more shots than just a forehand and serve? Mail it back to us! Can't have that world number 1 spot!

Don't focus on the second part because memes.
 
That's what I've heard about Roddick today.

Guess what? He is a former No. 1 and major winner.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
 
Sabratha said:
That's what I've heard about Roddick today.

Guess what? He is a former No. 1 and major winner.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Click to expand...
LOL, I almost spilled my water reading you pumping up Roddick as a slam winner. Gaudio also won a slam and Rios was also #1. Im actually close to making a thread talking about how Roddick single handedly ruined American tennis with his whole big serve mentality lol.

I'm going to bed though. See you in the morning!
 
Fabresque said:
LOL, I almost spilled my water reading you pumping up Roddick as a slam winner. Gaudio also won a slam and Rios was also #1. Im actually close to making a thread talking about how Roddick single handedly ruined American tennis with his whole big serve mentality lol.

I'm going to bed though. See you in the morning!
Click to expand...
If Roddick played in this pathetic era he'd have as many majors as the mug in your avatar.

Don't care about your personal life, mayn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is this surprising. American tennis big forehand, Big serve. Bad footwork, bad backhand. It worked well in the 90s so you cant criticize too hard. They just didnt keep up with the changes as the ball and court changed.
 
This thread has some of the most accurate stereotypes in modern tennis. Watching Isner so much this past few weeks has just made me realise how absolutely horrible he is on almost everything except the big serve, one two put aways. But also goes to show that you can make a very good living from having an insane serve + average (average in the scheme of ATP pros) ground game.
 
Sabratha said:
If Roddick played in this pathetic era he'd have as many majors as the mug in your avatar.

Don't care about your personal life, mayn.
Click to expand...
Don't disrespect Stan ever again, he rolls over anyone in the world including Roddick at his peak. Roddick would peak at number 5 and reach one slam semifinal, not even close to Wawrinka's level
 
Shank Volley said:
Good job calling out a poster out for disrespecting a player while simultaneously disrespecting another player. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Read your statement again, you made some grammatical errors. He called Stan a mug which is simply unacceptable, I was just being real with Roddick
 
Fabresque said:
Read your statement again, you made some grammatical errors. He called Stan a mug which is simply unacceptable, I was just being real with Roddick
Click to expand...

I'll leave it there because it's a fair assessment of just how much effort people should be spending responding to you. Andy Roddick was a phenomenal player who just happened to enjoy an enormous match up disadvantage with Roger Federer during his prime years (one which Wawrinka certainly shares). If he'd peaked towards the end of Federer's career as Wawrinka was fortunate enough to do, there's no telling how much success he could have had. Certainly more than he did.
 
Shank Volley said:
No wonder you have no perspective or memory of what Roddick was capable of back in his pomp.
Click to expand...
Any thoughts on why Roddick traded in that massive piledriver of a forehand that he had in 2004 with a more passive one in the years to follow?
 
Well a lot of people seem to think it was coach influence. It certainly made him more successful against the field, and it was more an active choice to rely more on patient point construction than an inability to hit that rocket forehand when he had the opportunity.

I do wonder whether he also saw that his one real barrier to major success (being Federer) struggled less with pure pace and more with uncomfortable spins and ball height, and thought he might have been able to exploit it by cranking up the kick on his forehand groundstroke.
 
Shank Volley said:
I'll leave it there because it's a fair assessment of just how much effort people should be spending responding to you. Andy Roddick was a phenomenal player who just happened to enjoy an enormous match up disadvantage with Roger Federer during his prime years (one which Wawrinka certainly shares). If he'd peaked towards the end of Federer's career as Wawrinka was fortunate enough to do, there's no telling how much success he could have had. Certainly more than he did.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And Wawrinka's success has mainly come as a result of a game that is effective against Djokovic. Another thing Roddick shares with him.
 
I think if Roddick had won that 2004 Wimbledon final which he looked to be on course to before the rain delay, he might have enjoyed a bit more success in the slams. Confidence levels surely had to be a factor in the latter stages of the majors after a few failed attempts and he never really found that balance between point construction and pulling the trigger.

Unfortunately for Andy, there was also this glaring issue of indecisiveness and poor decision making when it came to approaching the net and that has cost him a lot of best of 5 matches. Throw in losing a couple of tie breaks decided by small margins and that's his career in a nutshell.
 
Shank Volley said:
Oh for god sake, you're only 17? No wonder you have no perspective or memory of what Roddick was capable of back in his pomp. You were literally 4 years old when he was at his best. :confused:
Click to expand...
I could walk at week 2 and I was literate at month 8.

Surely you've forgotten what Wawrinka has accomplished in 3/4 slam finals. Roddick wouldn't have a prayer on any surface against a peak Wawrinka.
 
Rago said:
I think if Roddick had won that 2004 Wimbledon final which he looked to be on course to before the rain delay, he might have enjoyed a bit more success in the slams. Confidence levels surely had to be a factor in the latter stages of the majors after a few failed attempts and he never really found that balance between point construction and pulling the trigger.

Unfortunately for Andy, there was also this glaring issue of indecisiveness and poor decision making when it came to approaching the net and that has cost him a lot of best of 5 matches. Throw in losing a couple of tie breaks decided by small margins and that's his career in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. In Federer he was up against a player whose favourite return is tailor made for neutralising big serves, and someone who has (or had) arguably the best passing shots on the tour. Combine the pressure that Roddick knew he'd be under at the net each time he approached as a result of this with the man's net game (which was on most days merely average for a top ten player in an era of baseliners), and it was a losing proposition from the word go.
 
citybert said:
Why is this surprising. American tennis big forehand, Big serve. Bad footwork, bad backhand. It worked well in the 90s so you cant criticize too hard. They just didnt keep up with the changes as the ball and court changed.
Click to expand...
Agassi, Chang played in the 90's and did ok from both sides.....

There was no big change in the overall game of tennis. Just a few players who followed Roddick and unfortunately emulated him. THANKFULLY this new gen - Fritz, Tiafoe, Paul, Fratangelo, etc saw the limits of that game and developed respectable BHs.
 
West Coast Ace said:
Agassi, Chang played in the 90's and did ok from both sides.....

There was no big change in the overall game of tennis. Just a few players who followed Roddick and unfortunately emulated him. THANKFULLY this new gen - Fritz, Tiafoe, Paul, Fratangelo, etc saw the limits of that game and developed respectable BHs.
Click to expand...

Too bad they don't have forehands.

And the fact that Sock has a backhand is news to me.

J
 
Fabresque said:
I could walk at week 2 and I was literate at month 8.

Surely you've forgotten what Wawrinka has accomplished in 3/4 slam finals. Roddick wouldn't have a prayer on any surface against a peak Wawrinka.
Click to expand...

I'm not favoring Wawrinka on any surface that's remotely quick against peak Roddick. His grip changes on his groundies are pretty extreme and as a result he slices the returns back a ton against the biggest servers, and Stan's slice return doesn't touch Federer's. Roddick would be able to get the initiative a lot off the ground on account of Stan's considerably longer swings, and playing D against a guy like that is the last place you want to be unless you're Roger. Slow surfaces would be a different story, but considering the premise was any surface...

Plus, if both players were anything less than peak Roddick *still* probably handles him on anything but clay - there's a reason Wawrinka was an afterthought at best for the first 80% of his time on tour.

EDIT: And what exactly do fine motor skills and early literacy have anything to do with evaluating a tennis player you likely didn't watch in his prime on account of you being four or five at most?
 
Jack Sock has one of the more unique styles on tour. Their games have very little in common. sock's backhand is awful. 0/3.
 
citybert said:
Why is this surprising. American tennis big forehand, Big serve. Bad footwork, bad backhand. It worked well in the 90s so you cant criticize too hard. They just didnt keep up with the changes as the ball and court changed.
Click to expand...
Andre Agassi probably had the best backhand of his era. Unlike the Americans today, Sampras could get away without a big BH since he had one of the best serves of all time. Chang had solid footwork and groundstrokes on both sides to compensate for his lack of serve.

The only one you're really describing is Jim Courier. And he actually had pretty good footwork to be able to run around every backhand haha.
 
Fabresque said:
I could walk at week 2 and I was literate at month 8.

Surely you've forgotten what Wawrinka has accomplished in 3/4 slam finals. Roddick wouldn't have a prayer on any surface against a peak Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
I think you and I are surrounded by Roddick's friends and relatives....

I'd agree with you on the Roddick - Stan matchup if Stan gets enough returns back in play to Roddick's FH... Once in a rally Stan would destroy him.
 
Rago said:
Any thoughts on why Roddick traded in that massive piledriver of a forehand that he had in 2004 with a more passive one in the years to follow?
Click to expand...

Saw courts slowing and point construction was king, so he went with a spinny FH to play the margins and percentages. Bad move IMO.
 
beltsman said:
Saw courts slowing and point construction was king, so he went with a spinny FH to play the margins and percentages. Bad move IMO.
Click to expand...
You're giving him WAY too much credit!

More like: spinny, jumping FH leads to easy junior wins, which leads to a high ranking.
 
FD3S said:
I'm not favoring Wawrinka on any surface that's remotely quick against peak Roddick. His grip changes on his groundies are pretty extreme and as a result he slices the returns back a ton against the biggest servers, and Stan's slice return doesn't touch Federer's. Roddick would be able to get the initiative a lot off the ground on account of Stan's considerably longer swings, and playing D against a guy like that is the last place you want to be unless you're Roger. Slow surfaces would be a different story, but considering the premise was any surface...

Plus, if both players were anything less than peak Roddick *still* probably handles him on anything but clay - there's a reason Wawrinka was an afterthought at best for the first 80% of his time on tour.

EDIT: And what exactly do fine motor skills and early literacy have anything to do with evaluating a tennis player you likely didn't watch in his prime on account of you being four or five at most?
Click to expand...

But didn't you know? He could walk at week 2 and was literate at month 8 so obviously he could evaluate everything by about month 20. Come on, it's TTW, we're surrounded by self proclaimed geniuses.
 
beltsman said:
Saw courts slowing and point construction was king, so he went with a spinny FH to play the margins and percentages. Bad move IMO.
Click to expand...

It was also probably a case of him getting away from Gilbert post 2004 and going back to what was comfortable for him as a result. From everything I've heard about Roddick in his early junior days, he was relatively undersized and had the scrappy game (spin serves in, hit deep) to match. He adapted as he grew, but when he left Tarik Benhabiles and went to BG, he was basically told something along the lines of "you're the big guy now, so play like it", and the result was the baseline blaster that Roddick fans unfortunately only got to watch for for about two years.
 
Fabresque said:
The similarities in their games are crazy. Only differences come with Sock hitting his forehand with more spin to make it a heavier shot, but even Johnson has a heavy topspin forehand. Only key difference is that Sock has a backhand, where Stevie does not.

Both products of the Tennis Factory of America (TFA), proudly creating top 40 players since 2012! Factory fresh, same techniques and same ideology! Got a defective one? One that actually hits with variety and has more shots than just a forehand and serve? Mail it back to us! Can't have that world number 1 spot!

Don't focus on the second part because memes.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of British players before Murray who went off to Spain, none of them could rally just serve and volley to various degrees. No clay courts in the country, all learning their trade on fast indoor and grass.
 
citybert said:
Why is this surprising. American tennis big forehand, Big serve. Bad footwork, bad backhand. It worked well in the 90s so you cant criticize too hard.
Click to expand...
Did it? Because the only player I remember being successful with this tactic was Jim Courier (who essentially popularized this style of play). If anything, he (not Roddick) deserves the credit for being the archetype of this limited skillset. The only thing Roddick added was a bigger serve. But Sampras and Agassi certainly didn't have such a one dimensional game. Sampras' backhand was limited, but he made up for it with athleticism and net play surpassing his peers. Agassi, could hit winners off both wings and dictate play from the baseline against most players (except Sampras). He also had a much better return of serve compared to most Americans and competed in an era where huge serves were followed into the net by good volleyers (Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, etc)
 
Fabresque said:
Don't disrespect Stan ever again, he rolls over anyone in the world including Roddick at his peak. Roddick would peak at number 5 and reach one slam semifinal, not even close to Wawrinka's level
Click to expand...
What a loser. :D

Roddick has as much ability as your mug of an idol, was just unlucky to be playing in a stronger era.

I'd say grow up but I just realized you're 17. :D
 
Fabresque said:
I could walk at week 2 and I was literate at month 8.

Surely you've forgotten what Wawrinka has accomplished in 3/4 slam finals. Roddick wouldn't have a prayer on any surface against a peak Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
Wawrinka won in a weak era.
 
Sabratha said:
What a loser. :D

Roddick has as much ability as your mug of an idol, was just unlucky to be playing in a stronger era.

I'd say grow up but I just realized you're 17. :D
Click to expand...
Why do you refer to Wawrinka as a mug? I may be younger than you but I sure don't call players mugs for no reason
 
Fabresque said:
Because there are such things as match replays where I can watch matches from 200-2008 and I've watched plenty of Roddick. Answer my question please, why do you call Wawrinka a mug?
Click to expand...
You obviously only watched highlights dude.

Just being "real" about him. :D
 
sportmac said:
Agree, Sock's backhand is better than Johnson's. Faint praise though. Sock's backhand is mighty bad. My vote for 3 worst backhands on the tour right now are Raonic, Sock, Johnson.
Click to expand...
There's nothing I love more about tennis than hating on terrible backhands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dae18
If Jack Sock decided to get a 'supercoach' who would be a good choice? Courier or Roddick?
Replies
11
Views
881
Dae18
Dae18
P
Does anyone own a wildon clash v1 108 and a v2 108 and uses a 2 hand backhand?
Replies
9
Views
2K
pete101
P
L
Jack Draper has the potential to be a BETTER player than Roger Federer
Replies
17
Views
414
langley
L
TheFifthSet
Why Rafa is so great on clay.....
Replies
16
Views
2K
Steve0904
Steve0904
Winner Sinner
Happy Birthday Stan! Wawrinka's 40th birthday with 40 extraordinary backhands (Video)
Replies
5
Views
406
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Back
Top