Roddick is a disgrace

[MAX PLY]

I was there for the semis and the finals and Andy was indeed excitable but neither the racquet fling nor the tennis ball launch were big deals in the context of the matches. They were just signs of a frustrated competitor. Would it be better if he did not do it---maybe--but calling him a "disgrace" is a bit unfair (see, Nabandian, David).

As far as the commentary regarding Andy's ability--well, anonymous pontificating potential 3.0 players simply show their ignorance. The guy was in the top 10 for over ten years, was briefly No. 1, one USO, several other slam finals facing top form Federer and 32 titles (3rd among active players behind Fed and Rafa)--not a bad career so far. True, his groundies and volleys are not the best but certainly effective and his serve is one of the best ever. Plus, I actually think he is better tactically than he gets credit for (watch the Muller match again and see what Andy did when he was compensating for a hurt shoulder and a general depletion of power that day). Honestly, I like Andy but would not really call myself an Andy-fan, but I do very much respect what he has done in his career.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Really? If anything, way back when the people cautioning avoiding giving Roddick too much hype were in the minority - most people simply aren't die-hard tennis fans, and the bulk of casual watchers didn't hesitate in giving Andy the title of 'next great American' (granted, he was, but not to the extent of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc...) A shame too, as I think that hype was really a disservice to him. A lot of guys on tour would kill for his resume.

It was not just the casual fan, but commentators who jumped on the Roddick bandwagon the moment he won that lone major (the McEnroe brothers, Brad Gilbert, et al)

That being said, you don't fluke your way into a major. Roddick earned that USO, and rightfully so given that he beat the tar out of most people he played that summer.

But it says much that the results of that USO final never repeated at any following major--including then-future US Open events (one would argue his best surface considering the result). Like other "one majors wonders" (ex. Chang, Korda, et al) Roddick seemd to be at the right time, place and set of circumstances to slip by and get one major, but that was it. From that point forward, someone would hvae his number, get used to his serve (or work around it) and exposed him for the limited player he was/is, hence the man is quickly approaching a decade since he stumbled into a victory at one of the majors.

 

[woodrow1029]

The racket throw (when it comes to professional tennis) really isn't that big of a deal, in this circumstance. It wasn't a violent tomahawk style smash throw, it wasn't damaged, it didn't damage anything, and it wasn't near any people. In juniors tennis, college tennis, probably even a Pro Futures event, of course it's a code violation, but not there. Roddick had already gotten a code violation warning for launching a ball out of the stadium after the 2nd game of the match, and the racket throw didn't warrant a point penalty.

 

[mellowyellow]

The racket throw (when it comes to professional tennis) really isn't that big of a deal, in this circumstance. It wasn't a violent tomahawk style smash throw, it wasn't damaged, it didn't damage anything, and it wasn't near any people. In juniors tennis, college tennis, probably even a Pro Futures event, of course it's a code violation, but not there. Roddick had already gotten a code violation warning for launching a ball out of the stadium after the 2nd game of the match, and the racket throw didn't warrant a point penalty.

Exactly, it kind of arched to the net not laser beam style throw.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

It was not just the casual fan, but commentators who jumped on the Roddick bandwagon the moment he won that lone major (the McEnroe brothers, Brad Gilbert, et al)



But it says much that the results of that USO final never repeated at any following major--including then-future US Open events (one would argue his best surface considering the result). Like other "one majors wonders" (ex. Chang, Korda, et al) Roddick seemd to be at the right time, place and set of circumstances to slip by and get one major, but that was it. From that point forward, someone would hvae his number, get used to his serve (or work around it) and exposed him for the limited player he was/is, hence the man is quickly approaching a decade since he stumbled into a victory at one of the majors.

Frankly, you're dead wrong. Roddick isn't lucky to have one Major; he's exceptionally unlucky not to have more than one Major. You think Federer was "used to" Roddick's serve in the '09 Wimbledon final, where he failed to break him through over 35 consecutive return games? Roddick not only had four set points for a two-set lead, forcing Federer to come up with three great shots before Roddick flubbed a volley, but he also had two break points at 8-8 in the fifth, which Federer once again saved through exceptional clutch play; one shanked ball or an untimely gust of wind for Federer on any of those points, and Roddick would almost certainly hold a Wimbledon championship trophy right now. In point of fact, Roddick was not far from winning their 2004 Wimbledon final either, wherein he took the first set, narrowly lost the second, and led 4-2 with momentum in the third before a 40-minute rain delay, after which Federer immediately reeled off three straight games; no rain, and Roddick probably closes out that third set, from which point the match is effectively a toss-up.

The Federer era was the only one in which one guy was reaching the business end of every Grand Slam without fail for a period of several years. Federer was the best player in the history of tennis, and his best years closely coincided with Roddick's. It is exceedingly clear from Roddick's record (nine consecutive years in the top 10, five Grand Slam finals and 10 semifinals, 32 career titles, 12 consecutive years winning at least one title, etc.) that he is better than many past players who won multiple Grand Slam titles. It is an artifact of the exceedingly unusual circumstances in which he played that he himself does not hold more than one.

 

[Tshooter]

"That being said, you don't fluke your way into a major. "

You may not fluke your way to a Major (though Kodes argues against that notion). But if by fluke we mean winning a Major when you have no real chance to ever win another, then try:

Chang
Johansson
Teacher

and I think Kodes was a fluke by any definition given the strike.

 

[msweigert08]

Semi Finals vs Isner - BB&T 2012

Isner serving 6-7, 3-4 , ad out; 1st Service called foot fault , which Roddick happened to return back.

Roddick was upset that a foot fault was called when he made that return. It was not a return winner , but just a usual return in the middle of the court, waiting for Isner to smack.

He threw his racket all the way from the baseline to the net. No point penalty or code violation given.

After the match he justifies his action saying 'I get to return one ball the whole match and he gets called for foot fault. Havent seen him do that for 6 years of Isner's career. Who calls foot fault in a 3-4 game ? '.

How much more desperate can Roddick get ? Why does he have to throw racket when your opponent gets foot faulted ?

Shows absolutely he does not have any belief in himself.

Lost all respect for him.

Sounds like you are trying to find a reason to hate Roddick. If you think he is an ass for this, apparently you don't know Andy Roddick.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Roddick isn't lucky to have one Major; he's exceptionally unlucky not to have more than one Major. You think Federer was "used to" Roddick's serve in the '09 Wimbledon final, where he failed to break him through over 35 consecutive return games? Roddick not only had four set points for a two-set lead, forcing Federer to come up with three great shots before Roddick flubbed a volley, but he also had two break points at 8-8 in the fifth, which Federer once again saved through exceptional clutch play;/

Players truly destined to win many majors never needed so many "what ifs" to justify their performances, because in the end, they had the game to see it through or creatively outlast the opponent. For example, whether he fell to Johansson at the '04 USO Roddick was attempting to defend, the underwhelming Hewitt at the 2005 AO semis (at this point, Roddick was still young and theoretically a "smarter" player than his majors winnng year), or to Monfils at the 2009 FO, it is clear all of Roddick's failings at majors were not all at the hands of one player (nor was that player the only man winning majors throughout all of the years in question). Roddick--in his youth and/or prime could be outplayed by people--in theory--he should have defeated, particularly at the '04 US Open when his hard hitting, baseline-centric game was sold as the future of tennis.

 

[JRW]

"That being said, you don't fluke your way into a major. "

You may not fluke your way to a Major (though Kodes argues against that notion). But if by fluke we mean winning a Major when you have no real chance to ever win another, then try:

Chang
Johansson
Teacher

and I think Kodes was a fluke by any definition given the strike.

Not fair to throw Chang into that category IMO. After winning the French in '89 he made it to the finals of another French as well as the Aussie and US Opens.

 

[jmnk]

The racket throw (when it comes to professional tennis) really isn't that big of a deal, in this circumstance. It wasn't a violent tomahawk style smash throw, it wasn't damaged, it didn't damage anything, and it wasn't near any people. In juniors tennis, college tennis, probably even a Pro Futures event, of course it's a code violation, but not there. Roddick had already gotten a code violation warning for launching a ball out of the stadium after the 2nd game of the match, and the racket throw didn't warrant a point penalty.

@ woodrow1029 glad you commented on this. So let's see. The rule says:
"
b) Racquet or Equipment Abuse
i) Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a
racquet or other equipment within the precincts of the tournament site.
For purposes of this rule, abuse of racquets or equipment is defined as
intentionally, dangerously and violently destroying or damaging racquets
or equipment or intentionally and violently hitting the net, court, umpire’s
chair or other fixture during a match out of anger or frustration.
"
so you are suggesting that Roddick's racket throw was neither of:
- intentional,
- dangerous,
- with anger,
- violent.
??

On the other hand you are suggesting that him being penalized for hitting the ball out of the stadium --was-- justified? The rule on ball abuse says:
"
a) Ball Abuse
i) Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw
a tennis ball while on the grounds of the tournament site except in the
reasonable pursuit of a point during a match (including warm-up). For
purposes of this rule, abuse of balls is defined as intentionally or recklessly
hitting a ball out of the enclosure of the court, hitting a ball dangerously
or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with disregard of the
consequences.
"

Because to me all that means that --any-- of those rules are up to the umpire's interpretation, and they are interpreted differently depending on the match situation and/or a player involved. And I'm fine with it, sort of. But when we've discussed Nalbandian's case you were suggesting that the supervisor had no choice per the rules and had to default Nalbandian - which kind of contradicts how the rules were applpied to Roddick.
BTW - any comments on the completion of the Nalbandian's case in this thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6662850&postcount=78

 

[woodrow1029]

@ woodrow1029 glad you commented on this. So let's see. The rule says:
"
b) Racquet or Equipment Abuse
i) Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw a
racquet or other equipment within the precincts of the tournament site.
For purposes of this rule, abuse of racquets or equipment is defined as
intentionally, dangerously and violently destroying or damaging racquets
or equipment or intentionally and violently hitting the net, court, umpire’s
chair or other fixture during a match out of anger or frustration.
"
so you are suggesting that Roddick's racket throw was neither of:
- intentional,
- dangerous,
- with anger,
- violent.
??

On the other hand you are suggesting that him being penalized for hitting the ball out of the stadium --was-- justified? The rule on ball abuse says:
"
a) Ball Abuse
i) Players shall not violently, dangerously or with anger hit, kick or throw
a tennis ball while on the grounds of the tournament site except in the
reasonable pursuit of a point during a match (including warm-up). For
purposes of this rule, abuse of balls is defined as intentionally or recklessly
hitting a ball out of the enclosure of the court, hitting a ball dangerously
or recklessly within the court or hitting a ball with disregard of the
consequences.
"

Because to me all that means that --any-- of those rules are up to the umpire's interpretation, and they are interpreted differently depending on the match situation and/or a player involved. And I'm fine with it, sort of. But when we've discussed Nalbandian's case you were suggesting that the supervisor had no choice per the rules and had to default Nalbandian - which kind of contradicts how the rules were applpied to Roddick.
BTW - any comments on the completion of the Nalbandian's case in this thread:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6662850&postcount=78

Yes it is up to the umpire's determination/judgement whether to give a code violation.

With regard to Nalbandian, the supervisor had no choice but to default him due to common sense and the seriousness of the situation.

 

[jmnk]

[...]

With regard to Nalbandian, the supervisor had no choice but to default him due to common sense and the seriousness of the situation.

yet the ATP decided not to punish Nalbandian anymore. Meaning they decided that Nalbandian's actions were NOT "flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious". To me it looks like his actions were therefore not that serious. He (the supervisor in Nalbandian case) had a choice, he just chose to default him.

 

[woodrow1029]

yet the ATP decided not to punish Nalbandian anymore. Meaning they decided that Nalbandian's actions were NOT "flagrant and particularly injurious to the success of a tournament, or are singularly egregious". To me it looks like his actions were therefore not that serious. He (the supervisor in Nalbandian case) had a choice, he just chose to default him.

The ATP decided not to penalize further after what was penalized on court. Fine.

Ok, the supervisor technically had a "choice" by the rules, but due to what happened, he really had no choice. No competent supervisor would have chosen not to default him. It was a "no brainer" situation.

And, yes it was serious. Hence the obvious default.

 

[Vanhool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkmISAudQV8

AWESOME!
10GOATS

 

[single_handed_champion]

Umm.. foot fault is a foot fault. Doesn't matter if it is the first, at BP, MP etc. Was Serena's foot fault against Clijsters at 2009 USO her first of the match? And it led to MP too. Everyone gives her hell (rightly) for that, so why not this? Roddick should try harder to return serve than question legitimate calls that give him an advantage. What next? Break the net post because a let was called on an ace?

 

[rufus_smith]

So Andy shows his emotions, big deal. What do you want? Perfect little robots on tour for you to worship? You can find anger bursts for most players on tour including Fed ("shut up"), Rafa, Novak etc. Go back to your mom's basement before I throw my racquet at you.

 

[PrinceMoron]

There was a pure drive Roddick trashed at the UO in 2008? On eb@y this week £450 or there abouts asking price.

Seller obviously unaware there is a glut.

 

[TheCanadian]

Semi Finals vs Isner - BB&T 2012

Isner serving 6-7, 3-4 , ad out; 1st Service called foot fault , which Roddick happened to return back.

Roddick was upset that a foot fault was called when he made that return. It was not a return winner , but just a usual return in the middle of the court, waiting for Isner to smack.

He threw his racket all the way from the baseline to the net. No point penalty or code violation given.

After the match he justifies his action saying 'I get to return one ball the whole match and he gets called for foot fault. Havent seen him do that for 6 years of Isner's career. Who calls foot fault in a 3-4 game ? '.

How much more desperate can Roddick get ? Why does he have to throw racket when your opponent gets foot faulted ?

Shows absolutely he does not have any belief in himself.

Lost all respect for him.

Like McEnroe, he doesn't respect the game and he doesn't respect the players. That's why people don't like these guys.

 

[rufus_smith]

Like McEnroe, he doesn't respect the game and he doesn't respect the players. That's why people don't like these guys.

Now McEnroe is supposedly not liked????????????????????????????

Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

Troll #2 trying to hijack Troll #1's thread?

 

[TheCanadian]

Now McEnroe is supposedly not liked????????????????????????????

Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

Troll #2 trying to hijack Troll #1's thread?

This little board is not "the world." Yes, people tend to not like a*******s, and by any objective standard he was an a******* who didn't respect other players or the game. I'm sure it comes as a shock.

 

[FD3S]

Like McEnroe, he doesn't respect the game and he doesn't respect the players. That's why people don't like these guys.

I wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't respect the players - his behavior on court can get really bratty sometimes, but Roddick is probably one of the best on tour when it comes to not making excuses or discounting his opponent after a loss. Had Isner pulled that match out there's no doubt Roddick would have (genuinely) given him serious props.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Like McEnroe, he doesn't respect the game and he doesn't respect the players. That's why people don't like these guys.

You could not be more incorrect about McEnroe (John); he's one of the most tennis-addicted individuals the sport has ever seen, and advocates for it without end (and as a pro, excelled at the majors in doubles as well as singles). Without question, he was one of the most popular players of all time, and played a major role in sending men's tennis to pop cultural heights that have not existed since (especially now). It is laughable to even type Roddick's name next to John's as Roddick was very much a one-diemensional, baseline-centric, wild-eyed headcase thinking his bashing game was something great.

They are now and will forever remain polar opposites as men, players and what place held in sports/pop culture history.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You could not be more incorrect about McEnroe (John); he's one of the most tennis-addicted individuals the sport has ever seen, and advocates for it without end (and as a pro, excelled at the majors in doubles as well as singles). Without question, he was one of the most popular players of all time, and played a major role in sending men's tennis to pop cultural heights that have not existed since (especially now). It is laughable to even type Roddick's name next to John's as Roddick was very much a one-diemensional, baseline-centric, wild-eyed headcase thinking his bashing game was something great.

They are now and will forever remain polar opposites as men, players and what place held in sports/pop culture history.

Roddick is one of the mentally strongest players on tour IMO. He just has a short temper.

 

[TennisBatman]

Roddick is many things:

1) Tries to play like Sampras, but doesn't have his touch (maybe he fools himself with his badass serve?)

2) Still thinks he is the best grass player of his era, besides Federer

3) Thinks Federer is "just too good", only to explain his many losses to Federer in finals

4) Tries to be funny all the time, but is puzzled why other people don't laugh at his jokes

5) Longs for the "glory days" when he won his one US Open title and became #1


It's good to be a spectator...

 

[rufus_smith]

You guys like to live in the distant past. It is the year 2012. Roddick will be crushing Federer from now on like he did in their last meeting in March of 2012. No need to live in past glory for someone like Andy when just won yet another ATP tourney.



For those that live in the past check this out:

in 2004, Andy won the Arthur Ashe Humanitarian Award of the Year because of his charity efforts, which included: raising money for the survivors of the tsunami following 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake through Serving for Tsunami Relief and other efforts; auctioning off several rackets and autographs to raise money for UNICEF; and creating the Andy Roddick Foundation to help at-risk youth. The foundation is partly funded through the sale of blue wristbands inscribed "No Compromise", inspired by Lance Armstrong's yellow Livestrong wristbands.

In 2007 Roddick and the Andy Roddick Foundation was awarded by the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health. Roddick was the first male tennis player ever to receive the award.

This thread topic is a disgrace and should not be allowed in this forum.

 

[FD3S]

You guys like to live in the distant past. It is the year 2012. Roddick will be crushing Federer from now on like he did in their last meeting in March of 2012. No need to live in past glory for someone like Andy when just won yet another ATP tourney.



For those that live in the past check this out:

in 2004, Andy won the Arthur Ashe Humanitarian Award of the Year because of his charity efforts, which included: raising money for the survivors of the tsunami following 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake through Serving for Tsunami Relief and other efforts; auctioning off several rackets and autographs to raise money for UNICEF; and creating the Andy Roddick Foundation to help at-risk youth. The foundation is partly funded through the sale of blue wristbands inscribed "No Compromise", inspired by Lance Armstrong's yellow Livestrong wristbands.

In 2007 Roddick and the Andy Roddick Foundation was awarded by the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health. Roddick was the first male tennis player ever to receive the award.

This thread topic is a disgrace and should not be allowed in this forum.

To be fair, most of the people ITT are talking about his on-court behaviour and they're pretty much dead-on. I'm a big Roddick fan, but I can freely admit that sometimes he just needs to shut up and play.

Now, after saying that, Roddick seems like a pretty likeable fellow off court (frat-boy tendencies aside) and I've seen a fair number of TW posters rant on and on about how much they dislike Roddick without taking into account ANY of his good points. Fair? Not remotely, but hey.