Roddick = Grand Slam death

[Seany]

After seeing Wawrinka lose to Fed today, I was thinking to myself how when players beat Roddick it almost gives them a false sense of how well they are playing and perhaps makes them over confident, they think they have taken out the biggest server, and a top 10 seed.

So what happened to players after they beat Roddick?

I did some research to see if there was any evidence to back up my suspicions.

They almost always go out in the next round, there are very few exceptions.

This is all the grand slams since 2002 that roddick has played, of the 36 grand slams Roddick played, Federer beat him in 7 en route to the title. Roddick himself won 1 of the slams.

28 slams remain after this, of these 28, the player that has beaten Roddick has gone out in the very next round in 21 of these slams.

To clarify, that's 21 out of 28 times, a player not named Federer beats Roddick and then loses in the next round

That strikes me as a very high percentage, is there anything to this, or is it just coincidence, I dunno, but I found it interesting to see how many times this actually happened

2011 Australian Open
Wawrinka def. Roddick 4th round
Wawrinka loses next round

2010 US Open
Tipsarevic def. Roddick in 2nd round
Tipsarevic loses next round

2010 Wimbledon
Y-h Lu def. Roddick 4th round
Y-h Lu loses next round

2010 French Open
Gabashvili def. Roddick 3rd round
Gabashvili loses next round

2010 Australian Open
Čilić def. Roddick QF
Čilić loses next round

2009 US Open
Isner def. Roddick 3rd round
Isner loses next round

2009 Wimbledon (Federer)

2009 French Open
Mofils def. Roddick 4th round
Monfils loses next round

2009 Australian Open
Federer def. Roddick SF
Federer loses next round

2008 US Open
Djokovic def. Roddick QF
Djokovic loses next round

2008 Wimbledon
Exception

2008 French Open
Did not play

2008 Australian Open
Kohlschreiber def. Roddick 3rd round
Kohlschreiber loses next round

2007 US open (Federer)

2007 Wimbledon
Gasquet def. Roddcik QF
Gasquet loses next round

2007 French Open
exception

2007 Australian open (Federer)

2006 US Open (Federer)

2006 Wimbledon
Murray def. Roddick 3rd round
Murray loses next round

2006 French Open
exception

2006 Australian Open
exception

2005 US Open
Müller def. Roddick 1st round
Müller loses next round

2005 Wimbledon (Federer)

2005 French Open
J Acasuso def. Roddick 2nd round
J Acasuso loses next round

2005 Australian Open
Hewitt def. Roddick SF
Hewitt loses next round

2004 US Open
J.Johansson def Roddick QF
J.Johansson loses next round

2004 Wimbledon (Federer)

2004 French Open
exception

2004 Australian Open
exception

2003 US Open
winner

2003 Wimbledon (Federer)

2003 French Open
Sargsian def. Roddick 1st round
Sargsian loses next round

2003 Australian Open
Schüttler def. Roddick SF
Schüttler loses next round

2002 US Open
exception

2002 Wimbledon
Rusedski def. Roddick 3rd round
Rusedski loses next round

2002 French Open
Arthurs def. Roddick 1st round
Arthurs loses next round

2002 Australian Open
Ljubičić def. Roddick 2nd round
Ljubičić loses next round


So my advice to any pros out there, avoid Roddick in the draw

 

[Defcon]

This is a pretty interesting stat and I think you may be onto something here

But it may be just deceiving stats, one would have to compile a similar list for other top players (e.g. how many times does someone who beats another top-5 player goes out in the next round) to see if it really is that unusual.

 

[Winner_DownTheLine]

nice stat there

 

[kOaMaster]

hahahaha, this is great. never thought of that before. funny facts!

 

[Clay lover]

Another piece of evidence that roddick is a talentless clown who doesn't take effort to beat /troll

 

[sixone90]

Maybe because it takes a bit of effort to beat Roddick and they run out of gas in the next round

 

[Clay lover]

Compare this to Fed's 2004 Wim-2010 AO. Either Federer or the person who beat Federer became the champion.

 

[Bobby Jr]

That is an interesting trend... 21 out of 28 is no random happening either.

 

[li0scc0]

Maybe because it takes a bit of effort to beat Roddick and they run out of gas in the next round

Usually because Roddick gets very far into a tournament, and thus the player beating him is losing in the next round, a quarterfinal/semifinal/final. It isn't like Roddick is losing first round matchups, and the player beating him is playing somebody ranked 140th in the world in the next round.

 

[travlerajm]

A better way to look at this would be to see how many of those 28 times the higher seeded player won. My guess is that the higher seeded player won most of the time, meaning that the stat posted in the OP doesn't mean much.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Really interesting stats. Good job! I am going to theorize a possible reason is Roddick's game is so dependent on his serve that he is prone to upsets by lesser players that are not able to go deep. Not that Wawrinka was a lesser player...its just that alot of lesser players pad this stat.

Roddick is probably able to pull alot of upsets himself against higher ranked players if he is serving well but the rest of his game has become so vulnerable that he almost has to pitch a shutout on his serve just to have a chance in a tiebreaker.

 

[fuzz nation]

HA!!! Guess you don't have to be Superman to be susceptible to kryptonite!

 

[Eternally_damned]

Didn't Roddick win a slam?

 

[decades]

this simply means that roddick loses to players a level down from him.

 

[single_handed_champion]

Usually because Roddick gets very far into a tournament, and thus the player beating him is losing in the next round, a quarterfinal/semifinal/final. It isn't like Roddick is losing first round matchups, and the player beating him is playing somebody ranked 140th in the world in the next round.

This. We should probably take those cases with a pinch of salt where the guy who beat Roddick faced someone ranked higher than Roddick or someone Roddick would have no chance beating.

 

[tangerine]

Roddick fans have known this for years. Andy has the uncanny ability of making mediocre players look like geniuses for a night. We don't know why this happens. Maybe it's because he's been over-coached over the years and has lost some of his tennis instincts. Playing passive in the early rounds has rewarded him in the past and therefore he has no reason to stop doing so.

Just to prove how flukey their wins over Roddick was, you should do some further research and see how many of those guys beat Roddick again the next time they met. Getting a big win over Roddick was their career highlight. Just ask Kohlschreiber. Or Muller. Or Lu.

Andy plays down to his opponents and that's a mistake. He lets them get away with playing way above their normal level.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

the "roddick curse"...... interesting observation !

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Roddick fans have known this for years. Andy has the uncanny ability of making mediocre players look like geniuses for a night. We don't know why this happens. Maybe it's because he's been over-coached over the years and has lost some of his tennis instincts. Playing passive in the early rounds has rewarded him in the past and therefore he has no reason to stop doing so.

PMac said that the pattern for most players when they play Roddick is a large amount of winners due to Roddick's court positioning and loopy shots. Usually the next person that the player beating Roddick plays runs into someone who is fairly good.

 

[MajinX]

interesting stat but one must note if you are playing in a SF or F of a tournament in which is the case in many of the match ups posted after. the opponent playing is already far in the tournament. So the next opponent is usually tougher, u get the top 4 seeds plus whoever beat the top 4 seeds to make it there so it is not unexpected for one to lose after that.

Also many of those matches were 5 setters which drained the energy out of the guys who beat roddick. Tips, gasquet, cilic, they were all 5 set matches.

 

[jc4.0]

Roddick himself the issue

A better way to look at this would be to see how many of those 28 times the higher seeded player won. My guess is that the higher seeded player won most of the time, meaning that the stat posted in the OP doesn't mean much.

Guess you're not much of a stat guy yourself. Only in a couple of instances did Roddick lose to a higher ranked guy. I think the problem is Roddick losing to these wankers, giving them way too much confidence (and credit) they don't deserve, because A-Rod choked. Then next round, they wake up and smell the tennis balls!

My opinion - Roddick should stop losing to lesser players, lest he become one of them - and he's well on his way...

 

[MajinX]

Guess you're not much of a stat guy yourself. Only in a couple of instances did Roddick lose to a higher ranked guy. I think the problem is Roddick losing to these wankers, giving them way too much confidence (and credit) they don't deserve, because A-Rod choked. Then next round, they wake up and smell the tennis balls!

My opinion - Roddick should stop losing to lesser players, lest he become one of them - and he's well on his way...

Umm the guy ur replyin to means how many times did the guy who beat roddick lost to a higher seed in the next round. Not did roddick lose to a higher seed or not.

 

[jc4.0]

Umm the guy ur replyin to means how many times did the guy who beat roddick lost to a higher seed in the next round. Not did roddick lose to a higher seed or not.

Oh I see. Well I probably wasn't paying attention... This is just fun for me, not a paying job

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that you don't have to be playing that well at all to beat Roddick in a slam most of the time.

 

[shaysrebelII]

Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.

But as this thread shows, the conclusions you can draw from it are debatable.