I've actually not said that posting frequently is a bad thing, if someone, say, Drakulie, Zagor, Nam, Power_player, SystematicAnomoly actually posted frequently, this board would appear to look more knowledgeable than it looks right now. My only observation is that the posters who are posting frequently, are the ones who talk the most crap. At least Fed_Rulz only comes to this place once in a blue moon, although I suspect he's an alias of TMF (another frequent poster who also writes like an inbred). Roddick was slaughtered throughout his career, got hated on by a lot of posters simply for not winning, as for Safin, most people in this thread probably couldn't even tell me what FH grip he uses, or if he uses a ww or classic forehand.
Most Overrated Player ON THIS FORUM
- Thread starter Andyk028
- Start date
I've actually not said that posting frequently is a bad thing, if someone, say, Drakulie, Zagor, Nam, Power_player, SystematicAnomoly actually posted frequently, this board would appear to look more knowledgeable than it looks right now. My only observation is that the posters who are posting frequently, are the ones who talk the most crap. At least Fed_Rulz only comes to this place once in a blue moon, although I suspect he's an alias of TMF (another frequent poster who also writes like an inbred). Roddick was slaughtered throughout his career, got hated on by a lot of posters simply for not winning, as for Safin, most people in this thread probably couldn't even tell me what FH grip he uses, or if he uses a ww or classic forehand.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I'm a bad poster. And you can always put me on ignore if my posts displease you so much.
No, I don't think you're a bad poster, just mis-informed. On the boards and the media, Roddick was underrated and battered. I could easily dig up proof from the past. Safin is rarely talked about and wasn't overrated. I think people tend to underrate Safin's effort, which makes it seem like he could waltz into a tournament and beat Sampras/Kuerten/Agassi, but in truth he actually worked his butt off in the 04/05 off seasons, never really got a chance to prove himself after 05. Roddick ans Safin were always contenders when fully fit. These are facts.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yep, agreed.
Safin worked extremely hard to even come back in 2004 after his injury ridden 2003 season. He worked about as hard, or even harder during the 2004 offseason to produce some of his best tennis at the AO the next year.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
He got his YE #1 and slam in the weakest time of the atp era, from 00-03, which featured 4 of the only 6 YE #1s that were not 6+ slam winning ATG during its 42 year history and where one slam wonders popped up left and right. He didn't accomplish anything of note after that despite only then entering his prime early 20s.
Him giving Roger fits in Wimbledon finals shows more about the BS surrounding Fed's supposed mythical peak level of play. He still had +37 and +46 W/UE ratios in finals vs much better players in the 08 and 14 Wimbledon finals and despite that being his best surface (and not the best of his opponents in those finals), he still got beat. Of course in the delusional world of Fed fans those kind of #s correspond to declined
Not only that but the next generation players like Berdych and Tsonga were able to beat him at Wimbledon, while Roddick never could, yet despite these beatings occurring just 1 and 2 years after Roddick failed and Fed winning Wimbledon the year right after, winning more masters than he did in 08, and reaching world #1 again this supposed "respect of level of play" is absent with assessment of what transpired in THOSE Wimbledon matches where Fed actually lost and is also written off as declined
The most over-rated players are Federer followed by all of his 04-07 contemporaries (Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and even "peak Gonzalez and Baghdatis" LMAO) who are overrated to try to prop him up even further.
And we have people like you calling it "ridiculous" to compare Murray with Becker and Edberg yet stay mum when the your fellow trash tier fanbase claim Roddick would have been a "6 slam winner" (Becker/Edberg level) if he played in "any other era"
Only accomplishments matter, yet 0 time Wimbledon Champion Roddick would have beaten 2 time Wimbledon Champion peak Djokovic at Wimbledon
Stay a scrub
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The only reason Roddick didn't beat Federer at Wimbledon is because he didn't get a chance to play him when he was actually playing crap tennis, like Tsonga and Berdych did. Heck, he nearly beat Federer in 2009 when the man was on a mission and playing good tennis himself.He got his YE #1 and slam in the weakest time of the atp era, from 00-03, which featured 4 of the only 6 YE #1s that were not 6+ slam winning ATG during its 42 year history and where one slam wonders popped up left and right. He didn't accomplish anything of note after that despite only then entering his prime early 20s.
Him giving Roger fits in Wimbledon finals shows more about the BS surrounding Fed's supposed mythical peak level of play. He still had +37 and +46 W/UE ratios in finals vs much better players in the 08 and 14 Wimbledon finals and despite that being his best surface (and not the best of his opponents in those finals), he still got beat. Of course in the delusional world of Fed fans those kind of #s correspond to declined
Not only that but the next generation players like Berdych and Tsonga were able to beat him at Wimbledon, while Roddick never could, yet despite these beatings occurring just 1 and 2 years after Roddick failed and Fed winning Wimbledon the year right after, winning more masters than he did in 08, and reaching world #1 again this supposed "respect of level of play" is absent with assessment of what transpired in THOSE Wimbledon matches where Fed actually lost and is also written off as declined
The most over-rated players are Federer followed by all of his contemporaries who are overrated to try to prop him up even further.
And we have people like you calling it "ridiculous" to compare Murray with Becker and Edberg yet stay mum when the your fellow trash tier fanbase claim Roddick would have been a "6 slam winner" (Becker/Edberg level) if he played in "any other era"
Stay a scrub
Also, him giving Roger tough matches in Wimbledon finals says more about Roddick's level of play than Federer's. For the most part it was his serve that kept him in it (Roddick) along with his monster forehand. Obviously he's underrated if you feel Roger is "weak" for struggling with a guy who took out prime Murray at Wimbledon with relative ease after he was already past his own prime.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Why do you always go on and on about how many posts someone has? Honestly, does it matter that much? Does it make you feel better about yourself that you only have about 4,000 in 6 years? Because it seems to me like you judge posters and the "lives" they have by how much they post here.
Newsflash: You can post here A LOT and still have a good life you know.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
SpicyCurry1990 said:Only accomplishments matter, yet 0 time Wimbledon Champion Roddick would have beaten 2 time Wimbledon Champion peak Djokovic at Wimbledon
He'd have beaten him at least once.
Accomplishments wise, Djokovic >> Roddick at Wimbledon, but in terms of playing level? Roddick played about as well as Djokovic did for his trophy in 2014. Difference is Federer was more dangerous from the baseline and that's where Roddick felt the most comfortable.
Fast forward to 2014 and it's Federer who is struggling from the baseline.
Andyk028
Professional
I'm not a huge Breakpoint fan, as he tends to reminisce a bit too much about Pistol Pete and the long forgotten S & V, however, he has been on these boards for 10+ years. Don't attack people who post, unless they post retaliatory threads immediately after a win/loss regarding a player (horribly annoying).
besides, I post all day, how else could I survive work?
TMF
Talk Tennis Guru
No, because Safin and Roddick happens to be his favorite players. If any negative things say about them, Anaconda goes berserk !
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
2009 was almost certainly part of Roddick's prime. If anyone wasn't "prime" in 2009, it was Andy Murray. Also, Roddick did not beat Murray with "relative ease". It was a heavily contested match that Roddick won 6-4 4-6 7-6(7) 7-6(5). Like I said, people like you make prime Federer out to be some guy who served 95% 1st serves, broke 60% of the time, and hit 50 clean forehand winners per match. It wasn't like that at all. Roddick played great and gave Federer a run for his money, but in the end Federer outplayed him decisively and won the match in 4. In the end, it seems like many people here care about nothing more than the year a match took place. Federer played differently in 2012 than he did in 2004, but he was in no way any less brilliant. In fact, Federer was probably pulling out the finesse shots with much more frequency in 2012 than he did in the 2004 final; crafty drop shots, amazing volleys, brilliant all court tennis.
Most people agree that Roddick was good enough to be a Wimbledon title. It's just ridiculous how long people ride his 3 runner up finishes to Federer as a means to argue he was as good at Wimbledon as guys who have clearly outachieved him at this point (Djokovic and Murray).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yep, Andy Murray wasn't in his prime in 2009 yet he was ranked ahead of Roddick and even made it to his career high rank of No. 2.
It's people like you who consistently overrate Murray and or Djokovic and make excuses for them when someone has a valid point.. Ironically it is not Mainad who does this. He knows what Murray is and is not capable of. It's some BallsForTennis logic to argue this nonsense..
Roddick played a good tournament and got his fitness in order, but you'd have to be absolutely delusional to suggest that was some of his best play. He hit the ball cleaner/harder in both 2003 and 2004. He was more consistent earlier in his career.
It's like saying Nadal is in his prime now because he's 29. Ironically, the year which the match took place is not what you judge a player on; it's how old they are which is about as cynical.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No less brilliant in 2012? Are you kidding me?
He was not as quick, explosive or as aggressive. His court craft improved, but besides that, LOLnope.
He was not as quick, explosive or as aggressive. His court craft improved, but besides that, LOLnope.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Also to finish up.
Saying Andy Murray was in his prime in 2009 is not saying he was playing his best himself.
Andy Murray at his best on grass would beat Andy Roddick at his best on grass. It's saying that he was playing well, ranked highly and consistent which is true.
Saying Andy Murray was in his prime in 2009 is not saying he was playing his best himself.
Andy Murray at his best on grass would beat Andy Roddick at his best on grass. It's saying that he was playing well, ranked highly and consistent which is true.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
Yes, I am sure Murray was prime for Grand Slam competition. I wonder why he hired Lendl after all, given how he was already at his best in 2009, but just couldn't win because legends like Cilic, Roddick, and Verdasco were simply in his prime and didn't let him win. 2009 WImbledon was some of the best tennis Roddick has ever played. Hilarious that you actually think Roddick hit the ball "cleaner" in 2003-2004, his backhand was nothing but a weak bunt. He had absolutely no variety, he lacked the initiative to finish at the net confidently. Not to mention the fact that despite going for less on his serves, Roddick held serve as efficiently as he ever had in his career in 2009 with a higher 1st serve percentage.
Roddick's little apologists on here do a nice job coming with myths after watching grainy highlight reels from the 2004 final, but reality is tougher to deal with. Roddick never played Federer better at Wimbledon in 2009 and he ended up losing. In the end it doesn't matter, because only a handful of nostalgic souls actually believe the stuff you preach. Anyone who can watch tennis for what it is, and not consistently have their own agenda regarding their favorite players, can see that Murray and Djokovic are more gifted tennis players than Roddick ever was. You should gear up, you will be defending the Wimbledon-less Roddick for years to come as Murray and Djokovic keep racking up the accolades. I can just see you argue about how Roddick's peak level on grass was as good as Murray/Djokovic's despite them having 3-4 Wimbledon titles than Roddick.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
A declined Nadal saved RG from 2012 to 2014, too bad Fed declined too much to save Wimbledon from the fluke #1. May Murray have all the strength he needs to save Wimbledon tennis once again should he passes the SF test. djokovic surpassing Nadal on grass is one of the hilarious "djoke" in recent history given Nadal peaked early and had to content with a prime Fed.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Did you even read my other posts, or are you just so mad right now that you aren't thinking about what you are typing?
I said Murray at his best on grass beats Roddick at his best on grass already. If you actually read everything I typed, you'd see I said Murray was in his prime at the time because he was consistent, ranked highly and playing so pretty good tennis.
It's absolutely hilarious you think Murray only hit his prime when he hired Lendl. What about his play in 2010 or 2011? 2011 was probably Murray's peak, but you toss that aside as rubbish because he hadn't gotten Lendl on board yet.
I am also not even saying Roddick would have won multiple Wimbledons. If he were going to win Wimbledon, it'd be once and done.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
LOL! Yeah, 30 more net approaches than he had in 2004 and he was "not as aggressive". Why don't you cut the crap and just say it? You won't even acknowledge the fact that you can be 30 years old and catch fire and play great tennis. Federer was not as quick and explosive, sure, but he wasn't decrepit. He could attack the net, take the ball on the rise, and serve brilliantly. So yes, no less, brilliant. The volleys and drop shots he came up with are as memorable as any shots he hit in his prime.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
Hmm, you mean how you think 2009 Roddick was "post-prime" despite the fact he equaled/achieved his best results at the first 3 majors of the year in 2009? Roddick's reformed baseline game under stefanski is teh reason he played such complete matches against Murray and Federer in 2009? Did you see how amazing he was striking his backhand, He was no safin, of course, but for his standards it was brilliant. He won 90% of his service games, which is as high as he ever had in his career. However, you think Roddick was only prime in 2003-2004? Since when is 26 years old past-prime age. Roddick till this day maintains that 2009 was some of the most rewarding tennis he played.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nope. Roddick was most likely in his prime from 2003-2007ish. After that he had a mediocre 2008 and one last hurrah in 2009. Is there anything wrong with thinking that?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yeah, show me where I said he was decrepit? He played good tennis, but not to the standard of 2004.
The fact Federer had to finish at the net more often should tell you that he'd declined. In his best days he didn't even need to go to the net to finish a point. A huge forehand winner would be enough.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Gary Duane posted a stat few weeks back that in 2004 Fed had won 95% of the service games and broke 35% of the return games on grass. This stat is unusually high and people are comparing 2012 run to 2004? Lol
Speaking of net approach, Fed had won 312 points S&V'ing in 2003 compared to just ~60-65 in 2012. That's a MASSIVE difference.
Speaking of net approach, Fed had won 312 points S&V'ing in 2003 compared to just ~60-65 in 2012. That's a MASSIVE difference.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
Nope, we can agree to disagree in that case. I watched all of Roddick's finals against Federer and the one that hurt the most was 2009. I really think Roddick played about as well as I have ever seen him. He was no longer being baited by Federer's slice backhand. He was going toe to toe with Federer from the baseline even when Fed was striking the ball cleanly. Despite the butchered backhand overhead, he volleyed quite well. I think its about as well as a guy has a played in a slam final and lost.
In comparison, I thought Roddick in 2003 just got an arse-beating to remember at Wimbledon by Federer. In 2004, he was hitting his serve and forehand extremely well, but Federer was definitely exploiting his weakness off the backhand once he got his teeth into the match. I feel that Roddick closed up most of those holes in his game when he played Federer in 2009 (except his weak returning). Again, there are just my opinions. To be fair, I do consider Murray Djokovic to be better grass court players than Roddick, but Roddick at his best would obviously not get crushed and give them a run for their money.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Exactly what I'm talking about..
Judging a player solely on their age.
"Hey, he was in his prime 'cause he was 25".
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
OK, you're entitled to your opinion..
I still maintain my own opinion that Roddick played better in the 2004 final. He was better at net play and fitter in 2009, but in terms of how hard he hit his forehand and serve? 2004 all the way..
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
But what's wrong with finishing at the net? It requires a tremendous amount of skill. Federer is a natural volleyer and mover on grass. He was using his nautral talents and attributes to win. It seems like you are only placing value on prime Federer's rocket launcher forehands and backhand passes. I adored watching those, but I don't think those shots are any more brilliant than say, that drop volley Federer hit on Murray to win the 2nd set at Wimbledon 2012.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But why wasn't he using his other "natural talents"?
I give Federer a lot of credit for his 2012 run and think he played incredible tennis (some great netplay and variety) but I still believe he played better during 2004.
He could have used the same variety/skillset in 2004, the difference is he didn't need to.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
It seems like Roddick employed many different gameplans in his career. I agree that his forehand was much better in the 2004 final than in the 2009 final, but would you say it was because of physical decline or Roddick's own mental efforts to turn himself into more solid player? I think the latter personally, Roddick could still hit 100-110 mph forehands up till 2010, he just didnt do it often.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Maybe a bit of both..
Roddick was dealing with a couple of niggling injuries throughout 2008. I believe that may have impacted his natural game plan, so that is why he smartly devised a different strategy.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
I remember Roddick in 2003/2004 had days where he blew people off the court, but also days where he went for his massive forehand and piled up the unforced error count. That strategy let him down quite a bit against Hewitt and Federer, guys who moved well and countered a lot of his big shots. So, I can understand why he tried to change. Also, as you are a big Hewitt fan, and also seem very fond of Roddick, who do you think would have won the 2004 final had it been Hewitt vs Roddick?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Roddick.I remember Roddick in 2003/2004 had days where he blew people off the court, but also days where he went for his massive forehand and piled up the unforced error count. That strategy let him down quite a bit against Hewitt and Federer, guys who moved well and countered a lot of his big shots. So, I can understand why he tried to change. Also, as you are a big Hewitt fan, and also seem very fond of Roddick, who do you think would have won the 2004 final had it been Hewitt vs Roddick?
He ruined Hewitt at Queens.
Serve&Bash
Semi-Pro
Yeah, I agree. Although with Hewitt, he just had a way of getting under Roddick's nerves in those days, but I think Roddick would be too good.
Now If they had played in the 2005 final, Hewitt would have beaten Roddick's behind. Roddick pretty much clawed his way to the final that year by using his serve and mental strength. He had a tough outing practically every round that year.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Agreed.
Roddick's mental strength is something that's a bit underrated too. He didn't fear anybody not named Federer; thus why his record against Djokovic and Nadal is a bit more respectable.
Terry Tibbs
Hall of Fame
Rosewall
Bukmeikara
Legend
His 5set record is quite bad for someone with his resume so in the end he is notch behind compared to other top tiers in his generation. Safin AO 04, Mutis RG 04 (he had a great chance for deep run with Santoro, Chela, Henman being his draw after that), Johanson US 04, Gasquet Wm 07, Kohlsreiber AO 08, Federer Wm 09, Isner Us 09, Cilic AO 10, Lu Wm 10.
Andyk028
Professional
Sensational amount of butthurt in this thread mostly from one poster
My thread has turned to arguments about Federer and Andy Roddick...wtf..
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Not really surprising, everyone loves to bash Roddick and anything that happened before 2007.
Similar threads
