Roddick had negative W-L at RG

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Just imagine a time when players had games particularly suited to one kind of surface and they'd struggle on ones suited to a whole other kind of game. It's like a fantasy now.
The fact that Roddick did so poorly at RG compared to anywhere else kinda goes against your narrative though.
 

Lew II

Legend
I mean obviously they are not exactly the same, I didn't say they were that's you just conjuring arguments out of thin air, but bringing up how many titles people have won in a 50-50 scenario to compare against somebodies win-loss record is a hell of a stretch, even for you.

Nadal has won minimum 50 matches at all 4 majors, Djokovic minimum 60, Federer minimum 70. Hell, forget them, Murray is a win away from having 40 at each, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Simon, Monfils, Del Potro, Cilic, they all have well over 50% winning percentages at all 4 majors, most of them are over 60%, I'm pretty sure except Monfils at Wimbledon and Simon in New York they all have minimum 20 wins at all 4 majors, most of them are closer to 30. How many random top 10 guys in generations gone by can you say that about? These scrubs have got records at slams in terms of wins comparable to the top guys of the previous era - Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick,
That's because players are more complete now. In the past some were big hitters, some were fast and athletic... Now they're both.

This explains why 20yo Djokovic and Nadal were more consistent on all surfaces than any other of Federer's opponents in 2003-07. The conditions they played in were the same.
 
Last edited:

weakera

Legend
Roddick won a slam and was YE #1. That makes him a truly elite player. Nobody with an "extremely limited game" ends up as YE #1.
As if all slams, YE1's and eras are created equally? As desperately as Federer fans would like this to be the case - it never will be. Did Roddick advance past the second round on clay above the 250 level during his #1 season?

Now that's what I call an "extremely limited game."


rel·a·tiv·i·ty
/ˌreləˈtivədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun

  1. 1.
    the absence of standards of absolute and universal application.
    "moral relativity"
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
As if all slams, YE1's and eras are created equally? As desperately as Federer fans would like this to be the case - it never will be. Did Roddick advance past the second round on clay above the 250 level during his #1 season?

Now that's what I call an "extremely limited game."


rel·a·tiv·i·ty
/ˌreləˈtivədē/
Learn to pronounce
noun

  1. 1.
    the absence of standards of absolute and universal application.
    "moral relativity"
Being the best player for the year on a surface and being the #2 guy on another is "extremely" limited? Ok then.

Was Nadal an extremely limited player in 2013 when he couldn't win a match on grass?
 

weakera

Legend
Being the best player for the year on a surface and being the #2 guy on another is "extremely" limited? Ok then.

Was Nadal an extremely limited player in 2013 when he couldn't win a match on grass?
Nadal entered 1 grass tournament in 2013, so hilarious false equivalency there.

If any top player on tour today was as inept on clay as 2003 Roddick they would be crucified for it on this forum. Of course, Federer fans need to attempt to inflate Roddick's worth to try to make the Roddick era look less pitiful.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nadal entered 1 grass tournament in 2013, so hilarious false equivalency there.

If any top player on tour today was as inept on clay as 2003 Roddick they would be crucified for it on this forum. Of course, Federer fans need to attempt to inflate Roddick's worth to try to make the Roddick era look less pitiful.
Roddick actually won a clay title in 2003...

No one claims Roddick was a tough clay courter, his lack of results there has no baring on how good he was on HC or grass.
 

Jonesy

Semi-Pro
Weak era pidgeon. If he had a one handed backhand he might have won at least 2 more slams to equal Mugray.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
I mean obviously they are not exactly the same, I didn't say they were that's you just conjuring arguments out of thin air, but bringing up how many titles people have won in a 50-50 scenario to compare against somebodies win-loss record is a hell of a stretch, even for you.

Nadal has won minimum 50 matches at all 4 majors, Djokovic minimum 60, Federer minimum 70. Hell, forget them, Murray is a win away from having 40 at each, Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Gasquet, Wawrinka, Simon, Monfils, Del Potro, Cilic, they all have well over 50% winning percentages at all 4 majors, most of them are over 60%, I'm pretty sure except Monfils at Wimbledon and Simon in New York they all have minimum 20 wins at all 4 majors, most of them are closer to 30. How many random top 10 guys in generations gone by can you say that about? These scrubs have got records at slams in terms of wins comparable to the top guys of the previous era - Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick,
IMO the homogenisation is a good thing then because I wouldn't want to play on surfaces so vastly different from one another that I can be championship level one surface, and a complete mug on another surface. The era of today where there are noticeable differences, but not so much pronounced as back in the 90's is a good thing.

I think tennis has moved on to better things and some people are stuck in the past, as is normal, as people generally hate change.
 
Top