Roddick vs Haas Wimbledon 2009

Who would you root for?

  • Roddick

    Votes: 6 100.0%
  • Haas

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Just a random thought I had. Who would you have rooted for in this hypothetical match-up if Tommy had somehow gotten past Federer?

Few, if any, in history have deserved a Wimbledon title more than Andy Roddick. But at least he had his USO title on the shelf already. Tommy never won any slam and was absolutely robbed by injuries. Both would've been a feel-good title and really tough to root against either guy.



Fwiw, I think this would've been an easy win for A-Rod anyway.
 

BGod

Legend
Roddick really wanted Wimbledon though and was blocked directly by Federer on 4 occasions. So yeah, him. Haas was robbed by injuries for sure but then he wasn't the potential all-timer Roddick was. I will fight to the end how Andy would have 6-8 Slams without Federer if not 10+ given confidence of winning them.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I like Tommy Haas but it would have been impossible for me not to root for Roddick to finally snare that elusive Wimby title. I still remember a TV commercial that aired just after Wimbledon in '04 or '05 that showed Andy, finalist in both those years, heading home on a plane smiling with the Wimbledon trophy on a cushion beside him. Then a stewardess bends down to speak to him and he wakes up, glances to his side, but no trophy, only an empty seat. It was all just a dream! One of the most poignant memories I have of his ultimately unsuccessful attempt to make that dream come true! :(
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
Roddick really wanted Wimbledon though and was blocked directly by Federer on 4 occasions. So yeah, him. Haas was robbed by injuries for sure but then he wasn't the potential all-timer Roddick was. I will fight to the end how Andy would have 6-8 Slams without Federer if not 10+ given confidence of winning them.
I could see Roddick winning 4 or 5 majors without Federer maybe. Not 6-8. I dont think he was ever an all time great caliber player.

And if he did win 4 or 5 majors, even that would be an overachievement given his talent level.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I like Tommy Haas but it would have been impossible for me not to root for Roddick to finally snare that elusive Wimby title. I still remember a TV commercial that aired just after Wimbledon in '04 or '05 that showed Andy, finalist in both those years, heading home on a plane smiling with the Wimbledon trophy on a cushion beside him. Then a stewardess bends down to speak to him and he wakes up, glances to his side, but no trophy, only an empty seat. It was all just a dream! One of the most poignant memories I have of his ultimately unsuccessful attempt to make that dream come true! :(
Goddamnit they already had to put salt in the wounds all the way back then?
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I could see Roddick winning 4 or 5 majors without Federer maybe. Not 6-8. I dont think he was ever an all time great caliber player.

And if he did win 4 or 5 majors, even that would be an overachievement given his talent level.
It's impossible to know because without Federer Roddicks entire career becomes way different. Especially changes in self belief and all that would've been massive.
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
It's impossible to know because without Federer Roddicks entire career becomes way different. Especially changes in self belief and all that would've been massive.
That is true. There could be all kinds of carryover effects. Atleast in a vacuum I could only see 4-5 majors max for Roddick though. It is pretty certain he doesnt win Wimbledon 2005, Australian Open 2009, and probably Australian Open 2007 even without Federer. While he has a chance he also probably doesnt win U.S Open 2007, where Djokovic likely beats him. He almost for sure wins Wimbledon 2009. That is his only nearly 100% sure one though. Wimbledon 2004, U.S Open 2006, Wimbledon 2003, he has a pretty good shot of all 3, but none is a certain win, there are 1 or 2 people who would have had a valid shot of beating him in each of those. So 4-5 might even be generous in a vacuum.

As for the carryover effect if he wins those slams without Federer, who knows. Some put many of Roddick's problems down to Federer, I think they go beyond that. He was very stubborn, was a grinder at heart despite that not being where his physical gifts that did exist lied, and made too many rash decisions regarding coaching and other choices he made. That aspect we can never be sure on.

I just dont look at him and see an all time great in talent level at all. Even 4-5 slams, if he did manage that without Federer, seem like an overachievement given his talent. So in the hypothetical he did achieve that, or more, without Federer, he was destined to be a big overachiever without Federer, and in a sense thank goodness to Federer for stopping that. Someone like Safin probably still wins only 2 slams without Federer and he is light years more talented overall than Roddick.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
That is true. There could be all kinds of carryover effects. Atleast in a vacuum I could only see 4-5 majors max for Roddick though. It is pretty certain he doesnt win Wimbledon 2005, Australian Open 2009, and probably Australian Open 2007 even without Federer. While he has a chance he also probably doesnt win U.S Open 2007, where Djokovic likely beats him. He almost for sure wins Wimbledon 2009. That is his only nearly 100% sure one though. Wimbledon 2004, U.S Open 2006, Wimbledon 2003, he has a pretty good shot of all 3, but none is a certain win, there are 1 or 2 people who would have had a valid shot of beating him in each of those. So 4-5 might even be generous in a vacuum.

As for the carryover effect if he wins those slams without Federer, who knows. Some put many of Roddick's problems down to Federer, I think they go beyond that. He was very stubborn, was a grinder at heart despite that not being where his physical gifts that did exist lied, and made too many rash decisions regarding coaching and other choices he made. That aspect we can never be sure on.

I just dont look at him and see an all time great in talent level at all. Even 4-5 slams, if he did manage that without Federer, seem like an overachievement given his talent. So in the hypothetical he did achieve that, or more, without Federer, he was destined to be a big overachiever without Federer, and in a sense thank goodness to Federer for stopping that. Someone like Safin probably still wins only 2 slams without Federer and he is light years more talented overall than Roddick.
Carryover effect would probably be that Roddick never fires Gilbert after 2004 and from that moment everything is different.

I really don't see why people think Safin was so much more talented cause he got like 1 win over peak Fed and that's about it. Roddick's B game was much better and that's what helps tremendously in getting through Slams.

I think Roddick made a hot mess of his career in 2004/2005. He had training disciplin, but I think he decision making in terms of coaches and tactical decisions was super poor
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
Carryover effect would probably be that Roddick never fires Gilbert after 2004 and from that moment everything is different.

I really don't see why people think Safin was so much more talented cause he got like 1 win over peak Fed and that's about it. Roddick's B game was much better and that's what helps tremendously in getting through Slams.

I think Roddick made a hot mess of his career in 2004/2005. He had training disciplin, but I think he decision making in terms of coaches and tactical decisions was super poor
I think Safin is much more talented since technically he is just a much better overall and much more complete player. Technically flawless backhand and forehand, far better backhand than Roddick could ever have obviously. Technically very good volleyer which Roddick of course isnt, much better athlete than Roddick, equally skilled as a server and returner. He is probably one of the most talented players ever, his only weakness was his mind. If he had the fight and grinding desire of Roddick he would probably be a double digit slam winner, even as a half contemporary (I say half since he would have had the benefit of several peak/prime years before the Federer era as well) of Federer.

Roddick in some ways underachieved due to Federer and some bad decisions with coaching, and in other ways he overachieved given his limitations and very incomplete game.

Yeah he might not fire Gilbert after 2004 without Federer, but I wouldnt even be so sure on that. Roddick is very impulsive, spontaneous, tempermental, and sometimes a little too driven for his own good that he makes some rash and not well thoguht out decisions. Two big egos like that could never co exist for too long. Gilbert would be getting the can sooner than later regardless IMO, maybe later than he actually did though. Roddick wouldnt be satisfied with something less than dominance of the game, which he never attains even without Federer IMO.
 
Top