Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Roddick , US Open final, 2006

[Waspsting]

Roger Federer beat Andy Roddick in the final of the US Open, 2006 on hard court

The win gave Federer his 3rd straight US Open title - matching the Open Era record - and he would go onto extend upon it in the following two editions -
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ederer-vs-djokovic-us-open-final-2007.633118/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-federer-vs-murray-us-open-final-2008.611390/

Federer won 126 points, Roddick 99

Serve Stats
Federer...
- 1st serve percentage (63/103) 61%
- 1st serve points won (53/63) 84%
- 2nd serve points won (20/40) 50%
- Aces 16, Service Winners 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (28/103) 27%

Roddick...
- 1st serve percentage (80/122) 66%
- 1st serve points won (53/80) 66%
- 2nd serve points won (16/42) 38%
- Aces 7, Service Winners 8
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (32/122) 26%

Serve Patterns
Federer served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 62%

Roddick served...
- to FH 52%
- to BH 45%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Federer made...
- 89 (43 FH, 46 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 16 Forced (10 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (89/121) 74%

Roddick made...
- 75 (27 FH, 48 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 10 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (4 BH)
- 6 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (89/121) 74%

Break Points
Federer 6/16 (8 games)
Roddick 2/8 (5 games)

Winners (excluding serves, including returns)
Federer 47 (21 FH, 16 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 5 OH)
Roddick 15 (5 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 OH)

Federer's regular FHs - 6 cc, 4 dtl, 4 inside-out, 2 inside-in
- 1 longline return down the middle of the court that Roddick let go, mistakenly believing his serve to have been a fault

- regular BHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl, 1 drop shot

- 10 passing shots (4 FH, 6 BH)
- the FHs (3 cc, 1 dtl) and the BHs (4 cc, 1 dtl, 1 longline/slightly inside-out)

- 1 FHV was a swinging shot

- Roddick's regular groundshots were all FHs - 1 cc return, 1 inside-in and 1 at net

- 5 passing shots (2 FH, 3 BH). All were cc except 1 BH dtl, which clipped the net chord to beat Federer, who otherwise appeared to have the ball covered

- 1 BHV was played in a rapid fire, net-to-net situation

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Federer 51
- 24 Unforced (9 FH, 14 BH, 1 BHV)
- 27 Forced (8 FH, 16 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.3

Roddick 50
- 24 Unforced (11 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV)
- 26 Forced (11 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.3

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)
(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Federer was 20/32 (63%) at net, including 1/1 serve-volleying (a second serve) and 0/1 return-approaching

Roddick was 25/46 (54%), including 0/1 serve-volleying (a first serve), 1/1 return-approaching. He was 0/1 when forced back

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Match Report
This was a fine match, with 2 tough sets, 1 sublime one from Federer and a combination of high from Federer and low from Roddick in the opener.

Its a quick court and just getting the serve in play (especially Roddick's) is a challenge. Here Federer excels. The inevitable aces and service winners come down, but anything short of that is mostly put back in play (though usually not with any great authority)

Roddick's ground game (the FH in particular) is weaker than I remember it being. He has plenty of opportunities to seize charge of the point with a big groundstroke after the Federer return... but usually isn't able to. In part, this is due to Federer being quick in defence and solid in hitting defensive 4th balls, but I would put more of a black mark against Roddick's attacking groundshots here than credit Fed's defensive capabilities. He has just 1 baseline-to-baseline winner in play... which is extraordinary, given the number of soft returns he elicited

Unable or unwilling to force the issue from the back, Roddick's offensive strategy for the match is to take the net (though he serve-volleys just once). This gives him a couple of more problems. First, he makes a fair number of approach errors - and one suspects Federer knew that he would against the Swiss' short slice. Second, his volleying is substandard and he places a large number of them close to Federer. Third, Federer's passing is first rate

So what does that leave Roddick with? He's not getting enough free points with the serve due to Federer's reflexes and/or anticipating/ability to read the serve. He can't nurse the initiative his serve gives him with any consistency. And he's not particularly comfortable at net. Basically, he can't hurt Federer.... which given his big, aggressive game (a huge serve and regular net visits is about as aggressive as it gets, usually), is a huge testament to Federer's defensive capabilities

Another piece of Roddick's strategy that is dubious is his choice to serve so often to Federer's FH (he directs 52% of his serves there). Its standard operating procedure for big servers to target the shorter reaching BH return, even against players with reputed stronger BHs than FHs.... and Federer is certainly not one of those. And its clear from the action that while about equally able to get the ball back in play of either side, Federer's FH returns are much more forceful than his BHs.... what the thinking is for Roddick to continue targeting the FH return is, I can't imagine

Federer for his part is on song in attack as well as defence. He also ventures to net more than usual - with significantly more success than the American. This is due to a lot of reasons - he's quicker to get there, volleys a lot better and Roddick's passing is two calibres below the Swiss' own. But its his attacking groundstrokes that take the eye. Federer opens the court as and when he wishes and puts away winners seemingly at will throughout the match.

21 FH and 16 BHs represents one of his more balanced winner outputs.

Roddick is slow to start and doesn't place his serve particularly well in the first set, while Fed plays very high level stuff. The second and third are both tough sets.... in the second, Fed loses serve early in a slightly loose game (credit also to Roddick, who forces the issue on a couple of points) and in the third, Fed raises his level to score the decisive break, but otherwise the players are about equal. In the fourth, Fed raises his level to sublime and leaves Roddick with no chance

Couple of interesting points. Fed scores his sole return winner when Roddick stops playing, thinking his first serve had been a fault. The American, probably uniquely, challenges his own service being called good(!) To no avail - replays indicate it was good, so Roddick loses the point. At least he has a laugh about it

Fed has 1 championship point on Roddick's serve, which would have given him a finals set bagel. This is erased by a powerful first serve. Fed return-approaches on the next point... not a great approach, but to the Roddick BH, one would expect Fed to win the point most of the time. Instead, Roddick responds well and makes the passing winner and goes on to hold to deny the bagel

Summing up - sublime from Fed - both in offense and defence as well as riding the storm of Roddick's successful big serving phases. Outside the serve (for which I would primarily credit Federer for returning well), offensively disappointing from Roddick

 

[Moose Malloy]

Roddick is certainly one of the strangest players I've seen in all my years following tennis. Commentators going on and on about his power, yet not many non service winners in match after match. 15 is a crazy low number for a hardcourt GS final(and he only had 9 in 05 W) Roddick's numbers are Wilander like, not like Goran, Becker, Krajicek etc, so its weird how so many think he would do so well in the 90s, this can't all be due to Feds great defense(and Roddick has often been torched in the winner department by far lesser players as well)

I think we pretty much have winner counts on every USO final, guessing 15 winners in a final must be among the lowest since the 80s(even Mecir had 13 winners when he was destroyed by Lendl in 86)

 

[NatF]

Roddick is certainly one of the strangest players I've seen in all my years following tennis. Commentators going on and on about his power, yet not many non service winners in match after match. 15 is a crazy low number for a hardcourt GS final(and he only had 9 in 05 W) Roddick's numbers are Wilander like, not like Goran, Becker, Krajicek etc, so its weird how so many think he would do so well in the 90s, this can't all be due to Feds great defense(and Roddick has often been torched in the winner department by far lesser players as well)

I think we pretty much have winner counts on every USO final, guessing 15 winners in a final must be among the lowest since the 80s(even Mecir had 13 winners when he was destroyed by Lendl in 86)

I think Roddick just wasn't sure how to play, he dialled back the power on pretty much every shot about half way through 2005. I imagine he'd play with more aggression in the 90's. This was actually a decent final from Roddick but it's not representative of his best level from say 2003/2004. Despite playing with more controlled aggression, rather than going for blasting winners he kept up with a very good Federer for two sets.

The winner count is only one part of a match as well, Roddick was definitely playing conservatively off the ground - trying to force errors or set up for an approach rather than hit outright winners - and he did force a decent amount of errors from Federer. Also worth pointing out that Federer himself hit 68 winners by Waspstings count, when your opponent is hitting winners with such regularity it doesn't leave much room for your own.

 

[Waspsting]

Forgot to mention one of the most stunning things from my viewing.

Martina Navratilova won the mixed doubles this year,partnering one of the Bryans.She would have been 50 years old

Don't know if that reflects how great she was, her partner was or mixed doubles being a joke

Roddick is certainly one of the strangest players I've seen in all my years following tennis. Commentators going on and on about his power, yet not many non service winners in match after match. 15 is a crazy low number for a hardcourt GS final(and he only had 9 in 05 W) Roddick's numbers are Wilander like, not like Goran, Becker, Krajicek etc,

Certainly true of this match. His court positioning is odd - he doesn't step in to attack the 3rd ball on his 1st serve points, though the returns are predictably coming in softly

More generally, I remember him having a powerful and aggressive FH, but I didn't see that here

I don't think there was ever much subtlety to his game, his offence (serve and FH) based on power , not placement. His volleying is amongst the worst placed I've seen too... probably a formula for low winners relative to forced errors figures

And he's relatively slow of foot, making it easier for people to hit winners against him via decent placement

... its weird how so many think he would do so well in the 90s

That's just Federer GOAT politics stuff... inflated rating of the 04-06 field to counter arguments of 'weak era' being significant factor in the Swiss' incredible record over the period, suggestions or outright assertions he would have done the same in any era etc

...15 is a crazy low number (of winners)... I think we pretty much have winner counts on every USO final, guessing 15 winners in a final must be among the lowest since the 80s(even Mecir had 13 winners when he was destroyed by Lendl in 86)

The lowest might surprise you. I'd feel good betting it's Pete Sampras' 8 in 1993 (Pioline 14)

50% unreturned serves and unforced errors from Pioline key factors in that result

Not the best of matches

 

[TheFifthSet]

Really interesting that Fed's ace % was 15.5 yet his unreturned serves were at 27%...very rare to see that small of a difference for high ace matches.

 

[FD3S]

This was the match that really cemented the shift in Roddick's game; while he had shown brief flashes of his 03/04 aggressive self in spurts over the course of the summer, Roddick's playstyle in the 06 USO final was what we'd see for most of his career to come. The thing that really struck me at the time was how conservatively he was hitting his IO FH; down the middle or CC is one thing but if you give up that much court to hit a shot without that much heat on it against someone like Federer... boy.

Roddick is certainly one of the strangest players I've seen in all my years following tennis. Commentators going on and on about his power, yet not many non service winners in match after match. 15 is a crazy low number for a hardcourt GS final(and he only had 9 in 05 W) Roddick's numbers are Wilander like, not like Goran, Becker, Krajicek etc, so its weird how so many think he would do so well in the 90s, this can't all be due to Feds great defense(and Roddick has often been torched in the winner department by far lesser players as well)

I think we pretty much have winner counts on every USO final, guessing 15 winners in a final must be among the lowest since the 80s(even Mecir had 13 winners when he was destroyed by Lendl in 86)

IMO baseline blaster Roddick probably does just fine in the 90's. He still wouldn't rank anywhere close to ATG status (and anyone who claims this needs to go back and watch guys like Pete) but his weapons/playstyle would have taken the racquet out of his opponents' hands more often than not, just like they did during his two year period as an aggressive baseliner on surfaces that had already slowed down somewhat. Big serve + big forehand was still the meta back then for a lot of players and Roddick at his peak had a brutally effective 1-2 combo; when all you need is one competent return game per set or a solid TB, that'll see you through against most guys.

 

[Waspsting]

Really interesting that Fed's ace rate % was 15.5 yet his unreturned serves were at 27%...very rare to see that small of a difference for high ace matches.

Very strange numbers

16 aces (and a service winner) to go with drawing just 11 return errors is unusual

Usually happens when returner is taking return very early - he gets aced a lot, but whatever he makes, he makes hard. But you also get high unreturned rate too

Also, Fed with a huge lot of groundstroke winners. I'm sure a large chunk are third balls, which usually goes with drawing weak returns (though less so for Fed, whose quite capable of dispatching normal returns with his FH for winners), which goes with Rod just getting the return back in play anyway he can without an eye to doing damage with it

Been ages since I did this and don't remember the finer points the dynamic, but numbers look like Roddick just being very good at getting anything not completely unreturnable back in play anyway he can (i.e. without an eye for doing damage with the return)

I statted this match in December 2018, before I became very particular (read: crazy) about 100% accuracy. There's a mistake in the return errors - Fed should have 11, not 10

 

[Third Serve]

This was the match that really cemented the shift in Roddick's game; while he had shown brief flashes of his 03/04 aggressive self in spurts over the course of the summer, Roddick's playstyle in the 06 USO final was what we'd see for most of his career to come. The thing that really struck me at the time was how conservatively he was hitting his IO FH; down the middle or CC is one thing but if you give up that much court to hit a shot without that much heat on it against someone like Federer... boy.

I’d say Wimbledon 2005 was a bigger, earlier indicator.

 

[FD3S]

I’d say Wimbledon 2005 was a bigger, earlier indicator.

In retrospect we should seen the warning signs even earlier on at the AO that year when he played Hewitt; all the highlight packages on YT make it seem like it was smashing the cover off the ball like normal but IIRC he was actually pretty passive (by 03/04 Roddick standards) off the ground for some noticeably long stretches. Then the IW/Miami swing came around and he seemed to find his aggression again, but as history would later show...

 

[Third Serve]

In retrospect we should seen the warning signs even earlier on at the AO that year when he played Hewitt; all the highlight packages on YT make it seem like it was smashing the cover off the ball like normal but IIRC he was actually pretty passive (by 03/04 Roddick standards) off the ground for some noticeably long stretches. Then the IW/Miami swing came around and he seemed to find his aggression again, but as history would later show...

Well he had a wrist injury in Miami but point taken.

He was still very solid at the AO I think. Would probably consider that still “vintage” Roddick though maybe he might have been even better the previous two years. I’ll need to check that SF sometime. I don’t recall him being too passive but I haven’t even seen the entire match so I should defer to you here.

 

[FD3S]

Well he had a wrist injury in Miami but point taken.

He was still very solid at the AO I think. Would probably consider that still “vintage” Roddick though maybe he might have been even better the previous two years. I’ll need to check that SF sometime. I don’t recall him being too passive but I haven’t even seen the entire match so I should defer to you here.

Could definitely be remembering wrong! I watched the match live and all I've seen of it since then were from the aforementioned highlight packages, for all I know teenage me was wayyyyy off in his analysis

 

[mike danny]

Forgot to mention one of the most stunning things from my viewing.

Martina Navratilova won the mixed doubles this year,partnering one of the Bryans.She would have been 50 years old

Don't know if that reflects how great she was, her partner was or mixed doubles being a joke



Certainly true of this match. His court positioning is odd - he doesn't step in to attack the 3rd ball on his 1st serve points, though the returns are predictably coming in softly

More generally, I remember him having a powerful and aggressive FH, but I didn't see that here

I don't think there was ever much subtlety to his game, his offence (serve and FH) based on power , not placement. His volleying is amongst the worst placed I've seen too... probably a formula for low winners relative to forced errors figures

And he's relatively slow of foot, making it easier for people to hit winners against him via decent placement



That's just Federer GOAT politics stuff... inflated rating of the 04-06 field to counter arguments of 'weak era' being significant factor in the Swiss' incredible record over the period, suggestions or outright assertions he would have done the same in any era etc



The lowest might surprise you. I'd feel good betting it's Pete Sampras' 8 in 1993 (Pioline 14)

50% unreturned serves and unforced errors from Pioline key factors in that result

Not the best of matches

You're definitely going overboard with the bolded.

 

[NatF]

In retrospect we should seen the warning signs even earlier on at the AO that year when he played Hewitt; all the highlight packages on YT make it seem like it was smashing the cover off the ball like normal but IIRC he was actually pretty passive (by 03/04 Roddick standards) off the ground for some noticeably long stretches. Then the IW/Miami swing came around and he seemed to find his aggression again, but as history would later show...

Roddick was pretty aggressive off the forehand at the AO, he was quite committed to keeping points shorter. He did throw in some moonballs off the backhand. The biggest difference at the AO compared to previous years was the movement, he seemed noticeably slower or more passive in his footwork between shots.

 

[FD3S]

Roddick was pretty aggressive off the forehand at the AO, he was quite committed to keeping points shorter. He did throw in some moonballs off the backhand. The biggest difference at the AO compared to previous years was the movement, he seemed noticeably slower or more passive in his footwork between shots.

And that might explain it, especially with someone like Hewitt exploiting it to keep him from teeing off!

 

[TheFifthSet]

I think Roddick just wasn't sure how to play, he dialled back the power on pretty much every shot about half way through 2005. I imagine he'd play with more aggression in the 90's. This was actually a decent final from Roddick but it's not representative of his best level from say 2003/2004. Despite playing with more controlled aggression, rather than going for blasting winners he kept up with a very good Federer for two sets.

The winner count is only one part of a match as well, Roddick was definitely playing conservatively off the ground - trying to force errors or set up for an approach rather than hit outright winners - and he did force a decent amount of errors from Federer. Also worth pointing out that Federer himself hit 68 winners by Waspstings count, when your opponent is hitting winners with such regularity it doesn't leave much room for your own.

All good points.

Moose is correct about Roddick not littering the stat sheet with winners but it’s definitely not for lack of power off the ground. I think Andy just never really had the racquet skill/maneuverability to open the court with precisely-angled groundstrokes. He usually chose to go the closed-court route which could force heaps of errors but wasn’t a style conducive to “hitting ‘em where they aint”.

Still an underrated ground-stroker IMO, even though his fh didn’t spam winners it was a great, if inelegant, pressuring shot in its’ prime and also not very error-prone from neutral positions.

 

[NatF]

All good points.

Moose is correct about Roddick not littering the stat sheet with winners but it’s definitely not for lack of power off the ground. I think Andy just never really had the racquet skill/maneuverability to open the court with precisely-angled groundstrokes. He usually chose to go the closed-court route which could force heaps of errors but wasn’t a style conducive to “hitting ‘em where they aint”.

Still an underrated ground-stroker IMO, even though his fh didn’t spam winners it was a great, if inelegant, pressuring shot in its’ prime and also not very error-prone from neutral positions.

Yes Roddick's FH in his pomp was a very good shot. I do think he had underrated racket skills off that side tbh. Seen him hit numerous "banana" shots, hit clean winners from difficult positions with the ball barely off the ground etc...

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yes Roddick's FH in his pomp was a very good shot. I do think he had underrated racket skills off that side tbh. Seen him hit numerous "banana" shots, hit clean winners from difficult positions with the ball barely off the ground etc...

oh, relative to the avg. player and also how Roddick is perceived around here, definitely underrated. I just mean in relation to some of the top guys of his era.

 

[toth]

Roddick has losen 6 or 7 point with backhand dtl in the fourth set.
Seems to be a bad tactic for me.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick has losen 6 or 7 point with backhand dtl in the fourth set.
Seems to be a bad tactic for me.

4th set was bad from him anyway. Like the first.

Sets 2 and 3 is where it's at. He kept up with a strong Federer.

 

[Roddickulous1]

Never rated this Roddick performance that highly. He just wasn't good enough from the baseline to trouble Federer here who was in peak form. Even if Roddick broke in that one game in the 3rd, Fed would've raised his level and won it back similar to the 05 USO final.

07 USO QF was better despite Roddick not winning a set. Bigger serving, blasting the ball off of both wings, trying to shorten points, etc.

Also, you won't see a high non service winner count from this version of Roddick but thats moreso due to tactics and strategy than a lack of ability to play aggressively which the younger Roddick could do and even an older one in rare, isolated instances.