thats right i said it. i really think he has a serious chance, after watching the first set against federer at the tms, he looks like he has what it takes.
Don't want to disappoint you, go back to look at 2004 Wimbledon final against Federer, Roddick played much better there.
Is everyone forgettin the fact that the rain delay gave fed the chance 2 regroup...
Don't know what you are trying to say. Are you saying Federer wouldn't win if it has rained that day? It doesn't make sense if you look at their head-to-head record.
All I am saying is Roddick was playing better in that first set than at any other time against Federer. People who are in awe how well Roddick is playing right now should go back to look at that match to remind themselves.
Why would they look at a match from 2 years ago 2 remind them of whats gonna happen in the future???
Best of 3 is a different scenario from winning 3/5 in a slam, and Roddick would still be hard pressed to do that against Roger. btw, lol at how 1 match can incite such extreme reactions.
thats right i said it. i really think he has a serious chance, after watching the first set against federer at the tms, he looks like he has what it takes.
thats right i said it. i really think he has a serious chance, after watching the first set against federer at the tms, he looks like he has what it takes.
thats right i said it. i really think he has a serious chance, after watching the first set against federer at the tms, he looks like he has what it takes.
It's a possibility, he did make it to the final this year. He has a shot to win either Wimby or the US Open. Fed can't win everything. The law of averages will go against him, one of these years he's gonna slip up. Now I await 10 posts from Fedtrolls ripping me for that blasphemous statement against the anti-christ Fed.
In addition to underrating Roddick's performance, you're also assuming Roddick has to beat Federer to win slams in the future. If history is any indication--and I grant that it may not be in Fed's case--there may be 1 or 2 more players that emerge who give Federer trouble in the slams. Even Sampras had a Wayne Ferriera or two, right?There are two things Roddick will never do, while Federer is healthy. 1) win another grand slam, and, 2) be ranked #1 in the world. Roddicks absolute best is not good enough, even when Roger is playing less then his best. Talk about Roddicks changed game all you want, but it is still not enough. Roddick won the 1st set in their Masters match on a lucky break ( a net chord, and a Federer double fault) other wise he would have lost in straights. As much as Pmac and Cliffy want to make a rivalry out of Roddick-Federer, it remains a joke: 12&1 in favor of Roger. Other players have a better chance at beating Fed in a Grand Slam: Nadal, Safin, possibly Murray & Blake. Roddick is obviously more interested in being a hotdog, then in closing out a match, reference second set tiebreak, and his stupid leaping smash that did not even land in the court! Why would anyone even think about taking that kind of chance, against someone who has beaten you 11 out of 12 times? Not enough game, and definately to much ego.
Connors is a definate asset for Roddick, but he can't play the points for him. I think the best thing Connors can do is humble this guy, a little. I think Roddick spends to much time listening to the rants & raves of Pmac & Cliff, who simply can not be objective, when it comes to Andy. To listen to these idiots today, you would have thought Roddick won the match against Roger, yesterday. They can't even acknowledge Roddick blew a great opportunity. They have zero credibility, when it comes to Roddick.
He did blow a great opportunity... but I think it's just as bad to not acknowledge that Roddick saved set points against the World No. 1 to get the opportunity in the first place. Go ahead and lambast Roddick's inability to close out, but also give him credit where credit's due.
Connors is a definate asset for Roddick, but he can't play the points for him. I think the best thing Connors can do is humble this guy, a little. I think Roddick spends to much time listening to the rants & raves of Pmac & Cliff, who simply can not be objective, when it comes to Andy. To listen to these idiots today, you would have thought Roddick won the match against Roger, yesterday. They can't even acknowledge Roddick blew a great opportunity. They have zero credibility, when it comes to Roddick.
What a terrible run of bad luck Roddick has had against Federer, 1-12, making Federer "appear" to be the better player.Very true. Roddick should have won the match 6-4 7-6, yes, but he very well could have lost the second set 4-6. He kept full composure for those set points. Sometimes it's just a sport of luck. Someone has to lose, and sometimes it turns out to be the guy that appeared to be the better player.