Roddick states he wouldn't be able to beat the top players today.

NYTennisfan

Professional
Guys like Isner would never come close to winning a GS final so it's a moot point to bring him up.
Not saying that Isner was as good as Roddick, to state the obvious, just using him as an example of a player with a devastating serve that troubled the top guys at times. Point being that I can understand Roddick's point about there being more of a premium on shot tolerance and movement in recent years. I still think he'd be a major threat at Wimbledon where his strengths can be major weapons and his weaknesses mitigated.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not saying that Isner was as good as Roddick, to state the obvious, just using him as an example of a player with a devastating serve that troubled the top guys at times. Point being that I can understand Roddick's about there being more of a premium on shot tolerance and movement in recent years.
True, but that doesn't help players too much anyway as the rest of their games have more holes than Swiss cheese.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The comments are getting so ridiculous I’m beginning to suspect a Truman show like conspiracy

but If it makes posters feel better and think they are “deeply studious fans” who am I to tell them to abandon such a delusional state?
Roddick was able to beat Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in their primes but he doesn't stand a chance against Zverev, Pas, Med, Carl, Sinner etc...OK sure lol.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Roddick Wim 2004 vs Federer Wim 2011 10 match series?
Hewitt USO 2001 vs Murray USO 2012 10 match series?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Roddick was able to beat Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in their primes but he doesn't stand a chance against Zverev, Pas, Med, Carl, Sinner etc...OK sure lol.
Apologies but the weakera rule requires I judge your tennis analysis by looking at your predictive track record. How is that going?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I correctly predicted that Carlos would beat Sinner and then Zverev to win the title. So pretty good 8-B

Not that what you said has anything to do with my point as usual...
Well done! I hope you made good money betting on your tennis predictions
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
What strings did Roddick use in 2003? That version of Roddick was more explosive and simply better than any later iterations.
 
Yeah, I'm not buying that. I've listened to his podcast quite a bit and from everything I've ever read on him he's roundly respected as a fairly sharp guy. Not saying he's a genius, but I'm not agreeing with you that he's a dummy.

You don't need to buy anything. I've been watching him since he won his first grand slam and the know-it-all interviews he's been giving since. He's always been like that. Guy has a chip on his shoulder and it's clouded his thinking.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
You don't need to buy anything. I've been watching him since he won his first grand slam and the know-it-all interviews he's been giving since. He's always been like that. Guy has a chip on his shoulder and it's clouded his thinking.
Oh ok, I thought you were trying to convince people that you had a point.
 
Roddick knows that evolution is very real. Guys like Sampras and Federer at their very peak wouldn’t have made it past high school tennis playing today. To be fair, I bet that they could contend for some local pickleball tourneys; maybe even win a city tournament with enough practice.
you exaggerate too much. on X, there was a guy who ranks about 600 or 1000 just beat mackinroe a few month back. if mackinroe stays around 2000 world wide, i don't think any college play can beaty 50ish samprass, not to mention federer.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
What Roddick may say is odds on he may be able to beat them less than they beat him.

But a guy like Tsitsipas with his weak return of serve he will get punished brutally.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I originally objected to you saying that pro players don't know what they're talking about because they don't have proper schooling.
Who do pro players hire to coach and guide them?

Mostly other (now retired) pro players. On occasion the coach (possibly a family member) won’t be a former player but will have accompanied them throughout their whole (or most) career.

What I don’t see anyone hiring are TTW online experts
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
Who do pro players hire to coach and guide them?

Mostly other (now retired) pro players. On occasion the coach (possibly a family member) won’t be a former player but will have accompanied them throughout their whole (or most) career.

What I don’t see anyone hiring are TTW online experts
:-D exactly
 

The Guru

Legend
As someone who generally agrees with the overall take Roddick is making here (the standard of tennis has improved in the last 20 years and movement/athletcism has become more important) I do think people are right to push back against the completeness comment. Now that's a vague term and I don't know what Roddick meant by it but if anything the primacy on baseline rallies has made players more specialized towards excelling there than having more all court skills. If by complete he just means less players have bad backhands (which is why he called himself incomplete) then sure I think he's right.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
As someone who generally agrees with the overall take Roddick is making here (the standard of tennis has improved in the last 20 years and movement/athletcism has become more important) I do think people are right to push back against the completeness comment. Now that's a vague term and I don't know what Roddick meant by it but if anything the primacy on baseline rallies has made players more specialized towards excelling there than having more all court skills. If by complete he just means less players have bad backhands (which is why he called himself incomplete) then sure I think he's right.
The moment they can be beaten by ways that aren't necessarily Djokodal's bread and butter is when the completeness argument goes out the window, IMO.

I mean, seeing Med have no answers to Djokovic of all people serve and volleying is hilarious and sad at the same time.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
As someone who generally agrees with the overall take Roddick is making here (the standard of tennis has improved in the last 20 years and movement/athletcism has become more important) I do think people are right to push back against the completeness comment. Now that's a vague term and I don't know what Roddick meant by it but if anything the primacy on baseline rallies has made players more specialized towards excelling there than having more all court skills. If by complete he just means less players have bad backhands (which is why he called himself incomplete) then sure I think he's right.
Federer era players had bad backhands. Now they know , its not going to be allowed anymore. Look at Tsitsipas. His entire career is shattered now.
 

The Guru

Legend
The moment they can be beaten by ways that aren't necessarily Djokodal's bread and butter is when the completeness argument goes out the window, IMO.

I mean, seeing Med have no answers to Djokovic of all people serve and volleying is hilarious and sad at the same time.
Well that's not necessarily why I would say that. Why I would say that is more what you were saying earlier where tons of top players have gaping holes in their games like Zed, Med, Rublev even Sinner have basically no net skills. Most top players have a mediocre to bad slice etc.

Djokovic was always the player and increasingly so with age that's been about targeting what you suck at because he can do everything so he'll just find a winning pattern against your style and execute it. Nadal played extremely plus one oriented tennis against everyone in his 30s I don't think he particularly picked on weaknesses he played his game and just won because he was better. At least in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
It's true not just of pro players, but anyone not educated. There are some exceptions on the tour.
According to your argument, you should not trust a certified mechanic to fix your car because after all, they probably lack the problem solving ability you gained through proper schooling.

For me, I'll both value the importance of an education, but also realize that it comes in a variety of forms and specializations. In Roddick's case, he has a very specialized education in tennis that few can claim.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Would you take Davydenko’s word?

I just laugh at some of the points and arguments made here. No point to even engage.

The difference has become massive. Roddick knows what he is talking about, and isn't the only one saying it. Only on TTW you hear nostalgists/propagandists talk. All I got to say.
Nadal, Davydenko, Del potro, Safin have all said different to Roddick. Are they propagandists too?
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Federer era players had bad backhands. Now they know , it’s not going to be allowed anymore. Look at Tsitsipas. His entire career is shattered now.
Tsitsipas and Ruud have made multiple slam finals in the inflation era. Berretini and Kyrgios are Wimbledon finalists. Only this year we have seen a proper breakthrough from the 2000s gen. 2023 Wimbledon was the only good slam last year from them.
 
According to your argument, you should not trust a certified mechanic to fix your car because after all, they probably lack the problem solving ability you gained through proper schooling.

For me, I'll both value the importance of an education, but also realize that it comes in a variety of forms and specializations. In Roddick's case, he has a very specialized education in tennis that few can claim.
Mechanics are highly educated. They work with very complex systems and have to be quite logical about how things come together. Tennis players barely complete high school. Big difference.

Just because Roddick says it doesn't make it right. That's up to you if you want to blindly believe it. I'm more into evidence. The bottom line evidence is Federer is one of the GOATs and Roddick was close to beating him on many occasions in the biggest stages, even as late as 2013. The evidence doesn't bear out what Roddick espouses.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
Mechanics are highly educated. They work with very complex systems and have to be quite logical about how things come together. Tennis players barely complete high school. Big difference.
I know high schoolers working on their ASE certifications. They're highly intelligent, but lack any sort degree that would make them considered highly educated
 
I know high schoolers working on their ASE certifications. They're highly intelligent, but lack any sort degree that would make them considered highly educated

Who you know is your anecdote. Generally high schoolers will not be as adept as someone who has completed college especially in a STEM field. that's the whole point of post-graduate education.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well that's not necessarily why I would say that. Why I would say that is more what you were saying earlier where tons of top players have gaping holes in their games like Zed, Med, Rublev even Sinner have basically no net skills. Most top players have a mediocre to bad slice etc.

Djokovic was always the player and increasingly so with age that's been about targeting what you suck at because he can do everything so he'll just find a winning pattern against your style and execute it. Nadal played extremely plus one oriented tennis against everyone in his 30s I don't think he particularly picked on weaknesses he played his game and just won because he was better. At least in my opinion.
I think that if you throw something different other than baseline grinding against them, they become deer in the headlights. Completeness should also be about adapting to what your opponent is throwing at you.
 
As a fellow baseball fan I’m sure you’re intimately familiar with this.

The first 90%+ of baseball history was chockfull of airy-fairy conventional wisdom peddled by ex-players…to a comical degree in hindsight. Seriously, you had managers that would tell their players that walks clogged the bases. It took Sabermetrics to cause a paradigm shift, and now just about every single organized baseball team on the face of the earth plays in the manner prescribed by SABR nerds that scarcely played a day in their lives (Bill James, Nate Silver etc).

These sentiments apply to many other sports, basketball included. As recently as 10 years ago we had “experts” very seriously argue that a jump-shooting team can’t win a championship. It took about 30 years for them to internalize, on a larger scale, the truth of 3 > 2.


These are not MIT physicists. They’re jocks. Many of whom are capable of very keen insights pertaining to their sport, much more than the average person or casual fan. But they’re still jocks that are susceptible to groupthink. Given that I’ve consistently been on the right side of these things in other sports (3’s in basketball, Sabermetrics/analytics in baseball) even before they were the dominant viewpoint, I think I’ll continue to have my own opinion here lol.


Guess I lied about not being drawn in.

I agree that ex-players frequently have bad takes.

However, the analyses done on tt warehouse doesn’t come close to the analyses done by SABR nerds. IMO the takes on tt warehouse are equally bad as those done by ex-players.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
I agree that ex-players frequently have bad takes.

However, the analyses done on tt warehouse doesn’t come close to the analyses done by SABR nerds. IMO the takes on tt warehouse are equally bad as those done by ex-players.
It’s not just that analysis here doesn’t rise to the level of SABR nerds. Does tennis even have the data available to do that kind of analysis? There are some numbers but I don’t see we have access to the kind of data that would allow in depth analyses. I understand some pros hire specialized companies to do stat analysis but I think they have access to proprietary information.

Most of the analysis here appears to be some version of the eye test.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
I agree that ex-players frequently have bad takes.

However, the analyses done on tt warehouse doesn’t come close to the analyses done by SABR nerds. IMO the takes on tt warehouse are equally bad as those done by ex-players.


It’s not just that analysis here doesn’t rise to the level of SABR nerds. Does tennis even have the data available to do that kind of analysis? There are some numbers but I don’t see we have access to the kind of data that would allow in depth analyses. I understand some pros hire specialized companies to do stat analysis but I think they have access to proprietary information.

Most of the analysis here appears to be some version of the eye test.

Well sure. Incisive analysis is extremely hard to come by here, or anywhere else. My point is mainly that being an ex-pro doesn’t confer some kind of special insight on its own, and that their takes can indeed be questioned, even ridiculed, on reasonable grounds.

I’m under no illusion that the average TTW take is more informed, or that this place is a galaxy-brain repository. Definitely wouldn’t compare the average user to Bill James.


As for the SABR/tennis comparison: yes, tennis is several paces less conducive to statistical analysis. Baseball is a far more linear game by nature. Which kind of strengthens my point: it is an easier game to unpack, yet its luminaries still couldn’t get it right. It still had hordes of scouts talking about “baseball bodies” and appealing to literal phrenology. It’s hard to really put into words how behind the 8-ball baseball ”analysts” were, until about 40 years ago when some mildly autistic freelance writer and fan with no background in academia started writing yearly tomes.
 
Last edited:

FlyingSaucer

Semi-Pro
In which world are Zverev, Tsitsipas , Medvedev , Rublev, Ruud and for that matter, Sinner are complete players ??

Zverev can serve 85% first serve, still no placement and gets broken 3 times a set on good days. On bad days, he serves more DF than 2010 Djokovic

The deer in the headlights look when they go to the net gives me a laugh every time

Over heads less said the better

There were more elite servers like Isner, Raonic, Roddick , Karlovic in the day. Now we have just Hurcakz. Berretini and Kyrgios are now MIA.

They have great rally tolerance from baseline grinding side to side , that is true but it is silly talking about this as completeness .

I'm convinced that what most people mean when they say 'complete' is 'balanced on both wings', which still isn't the case based on some of the examples you've given here. 'Completeness' as a discourse has only really gained traction in last few years as a result of Djo talking about himself as a complete player (or did a journo say it about him?) after... his RG 2021 win, I think? Maybe it's been different here but at ~other~ forums, I don't remember 'completeness' as a topic featuring much on the day-to-day.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Well sure. Incisive analysis is extremely hard to come by here, or anywhere else. My point is mainly that being an ex-pro doesn’t confer some kind of special insight on its own, and that their takes can indeed be questioned, even ridiculed, on reasonable grounds.

I’m under no illusion that the average TTW take is more informed, or that this place is a galaxy-brain repository. Definitely wouldn’t compare the average user to Bill James.


As for the SABR/tennis comparison: yes, tennis is several paces less conducive to statistical analysis. Baseball is a far more linear game by nature. Which kind of strengthens my point: it is an easier game to unpack, yet its luminaries still couldn’t get it right. It still had hordes of scouts talking about “baseball bodies” and appealing to literal phrenology. It’s hard to really put into words how behind the 8-ball baseball ”analysts” were, until about 40 years ago when some mildly autistic freelance writer and fan with no background in academia started writing yearly tomes.

I agree that just being a pro doesn't mean all your insights will be correct

I think, though, that too many posters here have these strong opinions about topics that pros don't agree with. For example, the overemphasis given to slams to the point that time at number 1 is considered irrelevant. I don't think there's a single pro that would agree with that. You see similar arguments when posters claim that some tournament or other is simply an exhibition.

In the case of Roddick he's played at the highest levels and he remains active as a tennis analyst. That's more than can be said of posters here. Of course, that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything he says.
 

Alcawrath

Semi-Pro
Lol, you sure you know what a straw man is? Better to acquaint yourself on the appeal to authority fallacy.
I've simply raised a question about your premise that tennis pros are unqualified to analyze tennis matches or tennis strategy and would best be left to college-educated people for some reason? Still seems ridiculous and something you can't actually back up. Please continue to attempt shifting the conversation and attacking me personally though if it helps your case.
 
I've simply raised a question about your premise that tennis pros are unqualified to analyze tennis matches or tennis strategy and would best be left to college-educated people for some reason? Still seems ridiculous and something you can't actually back up. Please continue to attempt shifting the conversation and attacking me personally though if it helps your case.

I didn't really start it off with tennis pros. My original post was about Roddick specifically. He has had this 'I'm a super sarcastic smart dude' attitude throughout his career. He was doing it to Djokovic in 2009 and now has to eat it words for being a moron. It's a front for his actual lack of depth. And it becomes fodder for the brainless sheep out there who eat it up.

My back up is the evidence. 2010 Nadal would destroy pretty much anyone today. Roddick beat that Nadal. Then there is 2009 when he almost beat the grass GOAT close to his best. That pretty much trumps any idiotic opinion he may have on the issue. The data don't lie.

I didn't attack you, I simply questioned whether you knew what straw man was, and if you are indeed into fallacies, then please do look up the appeal to authority fallacy, because that is the actual fallacy being committed here.
 
Top