Roddick vs Lendl - Best Wimbledon Player to Never Win Wimbledon

[encylopedia]

Someone here really doesn't like Roddick.

If your coy post is referring to me, I'm afraid you've misinterpreted. I have a great deal of respect for Roddick, which I tried to convey both in this post and in previous posts.

I think he is actually a great role-model for juniors - moreso than any of the top 4.

I am really beginning to be disheartened by the mindset here.

 

[encylopedia]

Someone here really doesn't like Roddick.

Ironic. I was going to show previous posts where I have defended Roddick...and found this:
_____________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by encylopedia View Post
You fellows are fanboys indeed. I find all of the big 4 somewhat unlikeable - I don't really care enough to "hate" them.

I find Federer and Djokovic probably the 2 most unpalatable.

Djokovic because of his early career tanking, and fake injuries. More recently, the ridiculous: I'm unbelievably fit now - more than Nadal - because of "gluten"....I don't expect these guys to admit their doping, but that kind of excuse I simply find insulting. Moreover - and this is a more petty criticism, but certainly one which we all are guilty of on some level - I simply find our sensibilities to be different. I don't really relate to, or enjoy his corny, yet arrogant euro-metrosexual persona.

Federer because of his passive-aggressive whiny behavior that emerges when he loses. The petty snipes, the 15 yr old teen girl instrumental aggression. Admittedly, he doesn't do this terribly often in the grand scheme of things, but there it is, consistently when under the most duress....and that's when a true sportsman really sucks it up.....anyone can be "gracious" when everything is going great.

I have no argument with anything Nadal says. He's a model sportsman in terms of his statements, and his off court attitude. Having said that, his brash behavior on court (the fist pumps and screams), and his on-court persona which is clearly contrived in an attempt to play mind-games and intimidate is beneath him.

Murray I find generally non-offensive, but he certainly comes across as a sour, spoiled brat at times, when he has a tantrum and is screaming at his own coach on court. He seems somewhat indolent, and not particularly warm.

I don't particularly find any of them "funny", or particularly intelligent. I have noticed Andy Roddick gets bashed a lot here, and I did not find Roddicks' "frat boy" image very appealing, but I actually found his wit faster, more clever, and slightly more erudite than any of the big four - though this may have been due to the advantage of having been a native english speaker, with north american pop culture ingrained in his psyche.

All in all, I'd say their are far more unlikeable athletes, inside and outside tennis, but I don't find any of them charming.

Ironically, if one was to take one of their ardent, adoring fans, my feeling is that Federer, Murray, or Djokovic would probably be nice in a quick fan meeting, but would likely laugh at you 5 min. after you left, and think "where do these losers come from?" I suspect Nadal might be the best bet to be genuinely friendly.

The fact is these 4 aren't particularly outstanding when it comes to personality....they weren't selected for that...it would in fact be quite a coincidence if the premise put forward by some fans were true: the 4 best players of the current era, just also happened to be 4 unusually wonderful people......lol. I think a more plausible explanation is that for those fans, the ranking and results have had some influence on their perception of likability!

...and yes, like many of you, I find players like Soderling, Berdych, the Williams, etc to be quite unpleasant.

In eras past, players I found likable include: Mcenroe, Chang, Noah, Leconte, Sampras, Krickstein, Edberg, Corretja, Ivansevic, etc

Players I found quite unpalatable: Stich, Tarango, Agassi, Connors, Rios, Muster, Rusedksi, Hewitt, Becker, etc
________________________________________________________________

To which YOU replied: "The author of this takes himself very seriously."



So...in a previous post I defended Roddick..which YOU should know since you replied...yet here you are accusing me of disliking Roddick. ON top of all of that...I see you frequently post no-content, whiny, little replies to me. Conclusion: you're a twerp, who is just wanting to fight, but lack the tennis knowledge, or intellectual capacity to do anything but catfight. I am sorry for you....and sorry that I have tried to give thoughtful replies to you in the past - if memory serves I recently wrote a lengthy thoughtful reply to another twerpy post you made to somebody else saying that I knew you were better (more "thoughtful") than that. I was wrong. My mistake.

 

[timnz]

Lendl two queens club

good question.. lendl was 81-25 on grass while roddick was 73-17. roddick won 4 queens titles. lendl only won one but he beat mcenroe and Becker to do it. I think everyone agrees lendl was the better play, but on grass I might give the edge to roddick he seemed more comfortable on the surface and slightly more successful. hard to judge tho since the grass was faster and more unpredictable which didn't suit lendls game at all. if they played on grass tho I might favor roddick. lendl lost to many grass court specialists in his career and that was roddicks best surface and lendls worst

Lendl won two queens club 89/90. His 1990 win was without getting broken once.

 

[Russeljones]

Ironic. I was going to show previous posts where I have defended Roddick...and found this:
_____________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by encylopedia View Post
You fellows are fanboys indeed. I find all of the big 4 somewhat unlikeable - I don't really care enough to "hate" them.

I find Federer and Djokovic probably the 2 most unpalatable.

Djokovic because of his early career tanking, and fake injuries. More recently, the ridiculous: I'm unbelievably fit now - more than Nadal - because of "gluten"....I don't expect these guys to admit their doping, but that kind of excuse I simply find insulting. Moreover - and this is a more petty criticism, but certainly one which we all are guilty of on some level - I simply find our sensibilities to be different. I don't really relate to, or enjoy his corny, yet arrogant euro-metrosexual persona.

Federer because of his passive-aggressive whiny behavior that emerges when he loses. The petty snipes, the 15 yr old teen girl instrumental aggression. Admittedly, he doesn't do this terribly often in the grand scheme of things, but there it is, consistently when under the most duress....and that's when a true sportsman really sucks it up.....anyone can be "gracious" when everything is going great.

I have no argument with anything Nadal says. He's a model sportsman in terms of his statements, and his off court attitude. Having said that, his brash behavior on court (the fist pumps and screams), and his on-court persona which is clearly contrived in an attempt to play mind-games and intimidate is beneath him.

Murray I find generally non-offensive, but he certainly comes across as a sour, spoiled brat at times, when he has a tantrum and is screaming at his own coach on court. He seems somewhat indolent, and not particularly warm.

I don't particularly find any of them "funny", or particularly intelligent. I have noticed Andy Roddick gets bashed a lot here, and I did not find Roddicks' "frat boy" image very appealing, but I actually found his wit faster, more clever, and slightly more erudite than any of the big four - though this may have been due to the advantage of having been a native english speaker, with north american pop culture ingrained in his psyche.

All in all, I'd say their are far more unlikeable athletes, inside and outside tennis, but I don't find any of them charming.

Ironically, if one was to take one of their ardent, adoring fans, my feeling is that Federer, Murray, or Djokovic would probably be nice in a quick fan meeting, but would likely laugh at you 5 min. after you left, and think "where do these losers come from?" I suspect Nadal might be the best bet to be genuinely friendly.

The fact is these 4 aren't particularly outstanding when it comes to personality....they weren't selected for that...it would in fact be quite a coincidence if the premise put forward by some fans were true: the 4 best players of the current era, just also happened to be 4 unusually wonderful people......lol. I think a more plausible explanation is that for those fans, the ranking and results have had some influence on their perception of likability!

...and yes, like many of you, I find players like Soderling, Berdych, the Williams, etc to be quite unpleasant.

In eras past, players I found likable include: Mcenroe, Chang, Noah, Leconte, Sampras, Krickstein, Edberg, Corretja, Ivansevic, etc

Players I found quite unpalatable: Stich, Tarango, Agassi, Connors, Rios, Muster, Rusedksi, Hewitt, Becker, etc
________________________________________________________________

To which YOU replied: "The author of this takes himself very seriously."



So...in a previous post I defended Roddick..which YOU should know since you replied...yet here you are accusing me of disliking Roddick. ON top of all of that...I see you frequently post no-content, whiny, little replies to me. Conclusion: you're a twerp, who is just wanting to fight, but lack the tennis knowledge, or intellectual capacity to do anything but catfight. I am sorry for you....and sorry that I have tried to give thoughtful replies to you in the past - if memory serves I recently wrote a lengthy thoughtful reply to another twerpy post you made to somebody else saying that I knew you were better (more "thoughtful") than that. I was wrong. My mistake.

If anything, this episode only reaffirms my view expressed in the post you quoted.

 

[Russeljones]

good question.. lendl was 81-25 on grass while roddick was 73-17. roddick won 4 queens titles. lendl only won one but he beat mcenroe and Becker to do it. I think everyone agrees lendl was the better play, but on grass I might give the edge to roddick he seemed more comfortable on the surface and slightly more successful. hard to judge tho since the grass was faster and more unpredictable which didn't suit lendls game at all. if they played on grass tho I might favor roddick. lendl lost to many grass court specialists in his career and that was roddicks best surface and lendls worst

Looking at it as a purely grass court player comparison:

I have Lendl as 81-27 with 2 Queens titles and 3 lost finals at AO 83, Wimbledon 86, and 87 respectively. What must be noted is that all of Lendl's lost finals on grass were in straight sets.

I have Roddick on 87-23 with 5 titles in 8 finals. 4 Queens titles, 1 at Eastbourne and 3 lost finals at Wimbledon against Roger Federer. Only one of those losses coming in straight sets.

Pro's for Lendl's case - he had to play better grass court players in more challenging conditions.

Pro's for Roddick's case - his losses were more contested and vs an arguably all time great grass court player; plus he won more titles and matches on the surface.

Cons for Lendl's case - he didn't put up much of a fight in any of his grass finals lost. He won only 2 titles on grass.

Cons for Roddick's case - he reached his Wimbledon finals during an age when grass court specialists were already practically extinct.

For my money, I'd be very hard pressed to see Lendl emerge victorious over a 10 match series vs Roddick with the 10 matches divided equally between the respective grass surfaces. Just a thought, though. Without Federer, one of the greatest players of all time, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because A-rod would be sitting on 3 Wimbledon titles. Just a thought.

 

[Ramon]

How about he just was not as good as he was from 2003-2006? Is that not acceptable?

I think that's true to an extent because self-confidence means a lot. Roddick was good mentally, but anyone will lose confidence after getting hammered enough times. However, he got hammered because the competition got better. So I tend to give more credit to the competition.

Without Federer, one of the greatest players of all time, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because A-rod would be sitting on 3 Wimbledon titles. Just a thought.

It's a thought, but a flawed one. He still would have had to beat other players in the final and go 3-0. That's not a certainty in the least.

 

[Russeljones]

It's a thought, but a flawed one. He still would have had to beat other players in the final and go 3-0. That's not a certainty in the least.

Not a certainty but close to it. A final against Grosjean or Haas? Even you would have fancied Roddick's chances in those. A final against Hewitt in 2005? 50/50.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I think that's true to an extent because self-confidence means a lot. Roddick was good mentally, but anyone will lose confidence after getting hammered enough times. However, he got hammered because the competition got better. So I tend to give more credit to the competition.

The competition was fine in 2003. It's a myth that it was "weak".

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Not a certainty but close to it. A final against Grosjean or Haas? Even you would have fancied Roddick's chances in those. A final against Hewitt in 2005? 50/50.

On grass? I'd favor Roddick. On HC? I'd favor Hewitt.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Dont forget that Roddick lost to Federer in the SF in 2003, he would have played Roger at the SF in 2007 too if wasnt his choke against Gasquet.

 

[Russeljones]

On grass? I'd favor Roddick. On HC? I'd favor Hewitt.

What is the thread title?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What is the thread title?

The thread title doesn't matter, I was addressing your post. As such my response was relevant.