Roddick vs Andreev match

davey25

Banned
Yeah Andreev is really playing poorly, it looks like Likhovtseva vs Pierce at the FO, all balls short and around the service line. Roddick is playing much better than his last round as well though. It might turn out to be his best match of the tournament.
 

davey25

Banned
Bleh! I guess Andreev is a hard court and clay court player only, which is where I saw him play before. The Andreev I saw on those surfaces would have atleast tested Roddick today. Hopefully Melzer will be a better test, I doubt it though, Roddick has had his way easily with him several times already this year.
 
T

TwistServe

Guest
Andreev has a pretty solid game.. just not strong enough for hardcourts/grass.. But I like his forehand and serve a lot..
 

bb47

Rookie
He has a bit too extreme grip to my taste and he should have hit the ball earlier IMHO to cut his unforced errors, if he wants to go anywhere further. He has not progressed much this year.
 
Barry, please....

The public courts joke was funny....unless you follow the circuit much. It is not necessary to have heard of everyone who has EARNED a place in a Grand Slam draw (either by ranking points or qualification). Make this point at the Masters Cup and we'll talk. And I'll email you a link to the ATP site.

"Here is what the players are saying about Roddick's special treatment and setup draws." Nice. You got me. I am officially a sucka. I read both links.

One was from the year 2000. The other was great, but neither made mention of a setup draw for Andy or anyone else.

Barry, with all due respect, it's a seeding thing. And a very close call between Hewitt and Roddick. Agreed, it's not fair to Hewitt, but they're going by a formula. Head-to-head on hard courts notwithstanding.

Maybe they'll bypass the public courts next year and find players from your club to fill Andy's quarter!

Oh, and I'm not a Roddick fan, and I agree that tennis is run poorly. The sport is rife with conflicts of interest. I definitely do not believe everything I read. But draw conspiracies? Barry, please.
 

barry

Hall of Fame
slice bh compliment

My complaint is with a committee determining seeds. Seeds should be determined by rank, not a bunch of all guys in the back room.

Hewitt deserved to be seeded 2, not Roddick. All the other grand slam events use ranking to determine seeds, Wimbledon should fall in line.

I played a lot of tournaments, and can tell a stacked draw. You earn rankings which should translate to your seed in the event.

Of course, Roddick is the last American in the top 25, I think Agassi is done. America is the big money market for tennis.
 

AJK1

Hall of Fame
Maybe if Hewitt hadn't lost to Karlovic recently he would have had a stronger case. Roddick deserves his seeding, regardless of recent losses to Hewitt on other surfaces.
 
OH, I see now...

Barry, your complaint is with the seeding committee...I apologize. I did not get that vibe from your first post in this thread -- the one about setup draws and special treatment. Chalk it up to the vaguaries of the written word.

AJK1 is on it. The seeding formula goes back two years. The old guys in the back room have made no secrets about that. Hewitt's title was in 2002 and his first round loss was in 2003. Plus, Barry, it's a different surface....and they're English people on a committee, practically born with PhD's in Beaurocracy. They're doing the right thing. Crusaders, if you will (and I will, even though I'm also sort of making fun of them, too). Maybe they'll read this and appoint YOU to that committee. You can lobby for using three, maybe four years of data. Make a difference, man! Maybe your boy Lleyton will thank you with a nice email. 10 character maximum.

As far as a stacked draw goes: let us know when you get back from your vacation in Subjective Hills. I'm sure your tournament experience and the first chapter of a Statistics text can tell us all we need to know about a DRAW. That said, it would have been a nice touch to have put Hewitt and Roddick in the same half. Let the players do the hokey pokey (not us). That's what it's all about. Unfortunately, the public DRAW just did not work out that way.

Rigging the draw? Now, I know it is in the interest of the game at large to have a charismatic American at the top of the pops, but do you honestly believe that they would risk Wimbledon's hundred and twnety-something year-old reputation as the cradle of the modern game's rules and regulations by throwing Husker a bone? Once again, Barry, please.

Sorry if I'm a little cantankerous this morning. But my screen name IS slice BH compliment. Okay, off to play tennis. Take care. Peace.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
barry said:
I follow tennis but have never heard of these players Roddick is playing. Did the Wimbledon seeding committee get them off the public courts?

Here is what the players are saying about Roddick's special treatment and setup draws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wimbledon2000/805210.stm
http://www.tsn.ca/tennis/news_story.asp?id=128500

Barry, until you have some sort of legitimate proof that the draws are set up, spare us from your ridiculous garbage posts. By the way, the first article has nothing to do with Roddick, it is from Wimbledon 2000, and in the 2nd one, Hewitt declined to comment on what he thought of the draw, so he had nothing to say about Roddick's special treatment.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
barry said:
slice bh compliment

My complaint is with a committee determining seeds. Seeds should be determined by rank, not a bunch of all guys in the back room.
Barry, as many have told you before, seeds are determined by a pure mathematical formula, not by a bunch of guys in the back room. There is no subjectivity involved. Please refrain from posting completely false things on this board.

barry said:
Hewitt deserved to be seeded 2, not Roddick. All the other grand slam events use ranking to determine seeds, Wimbledon should fall in line.
This is completely your opinion, stop stating it as though it is a fact. I, for one, happen to disagree with you here.
 

goober

Legend
barry said:
Of course, Roddick is the last American in the top 25, I think Agassi is done. America is the big money market for tennis.
America is not a big money market for tennis. Tennis gets incredibly low ratings here. It is routinely outdrawn in ratings by such "sports" as poker, golf and Nascar. Heck the French Open Final had a Nielsen 2.0 rating for the men and a 1.9 rating for the women which is incredibly low for a finals in a championship event in a sport. In contrast WWE smackdown (professional wrestling) had a 3.0 rating and the Simpsons- a 15 year old cartoon still gets 3.8 rating. Nobody cares about tennis in this country. I seriously doubt the Brits on the Wimbledon seeding committee give a damn about what Americans and American television think.
 

nViATi

Hall of Fame
goober said:
America is not a big money market for tennis. Tennis gets incredibly low ratings here. It is routinely outdrawn in ratings by such "sports" as poker, golf and Nascar. Heck the French Open Final had a Nielsen 2.0 rating for the men and a 1.9 rating for the women which is incredibly low for a finals in a championship event in a sport. In contrast WWE smackdown (professional wrestling) had a 3.0 rating and the Simpsons- a 15 year old cartoon still gets 3.8 rating. Nobody cares about tennis in this country. I seriously doubt the Brits on the Wimbledon seeding committee give a damn about what Americans and American television think.
hey the simpsons is pretty awesome. other than a federer, sampras, safin, suzuki, or nadal match i'd rather watch the simpsons
 

Max G.

Legend
barry said:
slice bh compliment

My complaint is with a committee determining seeds. Seeds should be determined by rank, not a bunch of all guys in the back room.
And the seeding committee knows this and
a) at all other slams they pretty much just go by ranking except in exceptional circumstances (in the WTA, they've given top players that were injured a high seed a couple of times)
b) at wimbledon they apply a formula to the entry rank that is designed to weight grasscourt results. Hence, the VAST difference between Hewitt's and Roddick's grasscourt results over the past two years was enough to overcome the gap between their entry rankins.


Hewitt deserved to be seeded 2, not Roddick. All the other grand slam events use ranking to determine seeds, Wimbledon should fall in line.
The formula used was:
Modified ranking = 100% of their entry rank PLUS 100% of grasscourt results of the past year PLUS 75% of grasscourt results from the year before that.

What's wrong with that formula?
 

Rob_C

Hall of Fame
barry said:
Jonnyf

Is Coria a grass court specialist, thought he only plays on clay
Coria did get to the finals of Miami, retired against Roddick after winning the 1st set, and losing the 2nd. I think thats when he had the problem with Kidney stones.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
goober said:
America is not a big money market for tennis. Tennis gets incredibly low ratings here. It is routinely outdrawn in ratings by such "sports" as poker, golf and Nascar. Heck the French Open Final had a Nielsen 2.0 rating for the men and a 1.9 rating for the women which is incredibly low for a finals in a championship event in a sport. In contrast WWE smackdown (professional wrestling) had a 3.0 rating and the Simpsons- a 15 year old cartoon still gets 3.8 rating. Nobody cares about tennis in this country. I seriously doubt the Brits on the Wimbledon seeding committee give a damn about what Americans and American television think.
Nielsen's are one thing. But the true measure is how much ESPN and NBC pay for the rights and the type of advertisers. Even if US ratings are lower, Americans have cash and spend it - that brings advertisers a rodents to a lump of cheese. And look at the products being advertised - it's usually high end products - Benz, Lexus, and Porsche have been big sponsers and spenders in recent years. I've watched the Simpsons every year and never remember seeing a high end car ad.

Having said that I still think Barry needs to find a new topic - this one's pretty well played out. If the players were truly pissed they'd release a statement and threaten a boycott.
 
Top