Roddick was a better player than Hewitt

90's Clay

Banned
I understand you're dense, but do you really think anyone else would have beaten Roddick at Wimbledon 2003/2004 and 2009? Come to think of it, do you really think anyone would have beaten Roddick at 2006 US Open or 2007?



You can go ahead and say Haas would have beaten Roddick (although couldn't beat Roddick on clay that year) and Blake would have beaten Roddick in his first major final at the US Open (although Blake is a choker) and Djokovic at US Open 2007 (keep in mind prior to 2011, Djokovic couldn't even deal with pusher Roddick, let alone one who was actually playing good tennis at US07)







Please, I've had enough of your trolling. Gimme your honest answer. Who would have stopped Roddick at Wimbledon 2004 and 2009? Don't even bother trying to deduct hypothetical possibilities of W03 AO 2007, US Open 2006/07.


Who knows.. You're talking about Roddick as if he was some MULTI-Slam winner. you DO REALIZE Roddick has always had problems with Nerves in Slam finals right?

So who's to say he wouldn't have had those same nerve problems vs. someone else. That wimbledon 2009 final for instance.. Fed didn't play great that day, Roddick played better and had a ZILLION opportunities to win the match (as he did in '04) yet flubbed out huge points he should have won. Especially the routine volleys which would have put him up 2 sets to 1 on Fed in 2009

Roddick is a 1 time slam winner because thats where he DESERVES to be. He never developed a necessarily all around game (especially net game to back up that big serve and he had many holes in his game often exploitable)

Hell even WITH Fed as opposition, Roddick was in position should have won TWO of the wimbledon matches but mental errors cost him tons of times. So who's to say, they wouldn't have vs. someone else?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Right but if not for 2011 God Mode Nole, Nadal would already be close to Fed in the slam count (1 off) and easily would have broke this year or even last

Doesn't work this way. If not for Nole, Fed also wins AO 08, 11 maybe. Or even some of USOs 10/11.

He maybe wins WTF 12. And he gets year end nr.1 in 2012.

So, Nadal would still not be close even without Nole. The gap would be the same, or even greater. Since Nole did more damage to Fed than he did to Rafa. Nole beat Rafa only in 3 majors, I think. Nole beat Fed what 5-6 times at majors?

So, without Nole beating Fed now maybe has 21 majors and Rafa 15-16. Nole actually helped Rafa.
 

90's Clay

Banned
to answer the OP's question,

Hewitt was Flat out BETTER. Better all around, more accomplished, less holes in game etc.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Doesn't work this way. If not for Nole, Fed also wins AO 08, 11 maybe. Or even some of USOs 10/11.

He maybe wins WTF 12. And he gets year end nr.1 in 2012.

So, Nadal would still not be close even without Nole. The gap would be the same, or even greater. Since Nole did more damage to Fed than he did to Rafa. Nole beat Rafa only in 3 majors, I think. Nole beat Fed what 5-6 times at majors?

So, without Nole beating Fed now maybe has 21 majors and Rafa 15-16. Nole actually helped Rafa.


Rafa is already close now (Just 4 off to tie and thats easily do-able) for Rafa even with Nole around.

Thats not even to mention Fed LUCKED OUT With Nadal injuries in '09 which enabled to win the French (Something he wouldn't have done with nadal not going down). And win wimbledon.. Again something he wouldn't have done without Nadal going down considering he barely squeaked by choking Roddick who GAVE the match away in '09

As we already know, Fed can't even beat lower level Nadal in a best 5. Even when hes playing well. Much less beat PEAK Nadal in a best of 5
 
Last edited:

Kobble

Hall of Fame
Hewitt was better. Hewitts return and speed were better in comparison to the field thatn Roddick's serve and forehand were. Hewitt, I believe, had the best return for a stretch, and the best footwork. Roddick never really had the best serve, nor the best forehand. Hewitt also had less weaknesses in his game.
Only when someone like Federer came along who could keep up footwork wise and outclass him on the forehand was he in any kind of trouble.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I am not familiar with this case. Why it was scandalously? Don't they have a formula used to calculate the seeds numbers, taking into account the grass results from two previous seasons and the current rankings?

Which no other major has, and done against a former Wimbledon champion. Because of this, world number 2 Hewitt had to face world number 1 Federer in the semi finals, while a below par Roddick staggered through to the final in the other half of the draw.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Rafa is already close now (Just 4 off to tie and thats easily do-able) for Rafa even with Nole around.

Thats not even to mention Fed LUCKED OUT With Nadal injuries in '09 which enabled to win the French (Something he wouldn't have done with nadal not going down). And win wimbledon.. Again something he wouldn't have done without Nadal going down considering he barely squeaked by choking Roddick who GAVE the match away in '09

As we already know, Fed can't even beat Nadal lower level Nadal in a best 5. Even when hes playing well. Much less beat PEAK Nadal in a best of 5

Please! How about Fed choking all those finals vs Rafa. Rafa lucked out. Fed should have 20 majors if Rafa wasn't a lefty and surfaces didn't slow down.
Fed is the only victim here, while luck is on Rafa's side.

With his genetics, he is lucky to not be dead with the strain he puts on his body. Every other player would have to retire. So, his lucky genes, lefty and homogenization helped him to be 13 instead of 6.

Prime Fed had 16 majors vs Rafa 6 in 2010. Then surfaces slowed down even more and Fed declined. Fed had tougher competition. So, the real slam count is like 20 majors vs Rafa 10 majors. And I'm being nice here.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Please! How about Fed choking all those finals vs Rafa. Rafa lucked out. Fed should have 20 majors if Rafa wasn't a lefty and surfaces didn't slow down.
Fed is the only victim here, while luck is on Rafa's side.

With his genetics, he is lucky to not be dead with the strain he puts on his body. Every other player would have to retire. So, his lucky genes, lefty and homogenization helped him to be 13 instead of 6.

Prime Fed had 16 majors vs Rafa 6 in 2010. Then surfaces slowed down even more and Fed declined. Fed had tougher competition. So, the real slam count is like 20 majors vs Rafa 10 majors. And I'm being nice here.



To me there is a difference between choking on key points, then playing well for a set and not being able to sustain high level play over the course of 5 sets.

Fed USUALLY (as history has shown) can play Nadal tough for a set and half or so then unravels. Most of their matches never came down to "key must win" points down to the wire.

Ive seen that in the Roddick/Fed match ups on certain matches where does choke key points (A few times at wimbledon and at the USO) as opposed to Fed playing well the first set and half the 2nd set but then unravels because he is unable to keep the high level of play up
 
Last edited:

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Which no other major has, and done against a former Wimbledon champion. Because of this, world number 2 Hewitt had to face world number 1 Federer in the semi finals, while a below par Roddick staggered through to the final in the other half of the draw.

I think I'm correct in saying that Wimbledon no longer follows this policy when seeding, and just follows the rankings?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
To me there is a difference between choking on key points, then playing well for a set and not being able to sustain high level play over the course of 5 sets.

Fed USUALLY (as history has shown) can play Nadal tough for a set and half or so then unravels. Most of their matches never came down to "key must win" points down to the wire.

Ive seen that in the Roddick/Fed match ups on certain matches where does choke key points (A few times at wimbledon and at the USO) as opposed to Fed playing well the first set and half the 2nd set but then unravels because he is unable to keep the high level of play up

Yeah. That's why Fed is goat only by one tier against Pete and Rafa and Borg. Otherwise he would be two tiers above Pete with 24 majors and two CYGS.
 

Anti-Fedal

Professional
Right but if not for 2011 God Mode Nole, Nadal would already be close to Fed in the slam count (1 off) and easily would have broke this year or even last

I don't get what you mean. Djokovic has beaten Federer more times in grand slams than he has Nadal. Nole probably has taken the same amount of slams away from both of them.

As for this so called 'god-mode Djokovic', didn't he lose to older Federer that year at FO and was down MP's at the USO, not to mention he was in trouble against young Tomic at the Wimbledon quarters and was a couple of points away from losing to Murray in Australia 2012.

Seemed to me Djokovic of 2011/12 was trained to beat Nadal from the baseline, given Rafa was the top dog at the time who had just come off dominating 2010. So Nole figured he needed to base his game on dethroning Nadal, which probably explains why he struggled a little more with Murray and Older Federer during that period.

And for the record, I do believe Nadal is a better player than Federer. Slam count is not the bee-all and end-all, which you seem to believe because it leads you to making some asinine assertions.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I dont know if someone mentioned it but Hewitt actually never got a win against a current number 1 player.

Hewitt never won vs Wawrinka? Is that true?

Wawrinka is current nr.1 player. Winning AO beating Djokodal.

Or are now masters more important than majors?
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Who knows.. You're talking about Roddick as if he was some MULTI-Slam winner. you DO REALIZE Roddick has always had problems with Nerves in Slam finals right?

Yes......I clearly saw a lot of nerves from Roddick in his first slam final.......



Get real, Roddick didn't lose those slam finals down to nerves, maybe W09 if any due to the magnitude of the fact it could have been his last chance to win Wimbledon. W05 he was outplayed and W04 he was unlucky. US Open 2006 he was again dominated at the end. You really think those matches I've submitted were lost by Roddick due to nerves?

So who's to say he wouldn't have had those same nerve problems vs. someone else. That wimbledon 2009 final for instance.. Fed didn't play great that day, Roddick played better and had a ZILLION opportunities to win the match (as he did in '04) yet flubbed out huge points he should have won. Especially the routine volleys which would have put him up 2 sets to 1 on Fed in 2009


Haas is a bigger choker that Roddick. Blake too, all were clearly Roddick's hypothetical finalists at W09 and US06. Routine volley? Do you actually play tennis?

Roddick is a 1 time slam winner because thats where he DESERVES to be. He never developed a necessarily all around game (especially net game to back up that big serve and he had many holes in his game often exploitable)

Hell even WITH Fed as opposition, Roddick was in position should have won TWO of the wimbledon matches but mental errors cost him tons of times. So who's to say, they wouldn't have vs. someone else?

Mental errors? A let chord, rain delays and the fact he played a lot more tennis were the reasons he lost W04 and W09. Not nerves. The guy could have folded against Murray, and could have folded in the 4th against Federer.



You're silly, Roddick's failure to win Wimbledon was his poor return of serve. Nothing more.



But hey, Roddick would have clearly lost to much better, achieving players like Haas, Blake, Gonzalez who have all proven themselves to be much better players than Roddick in slam finals. It's too bad Roddick wasn't as strong mentally as phillipoussis (his W03 finalist if he beat Federer), I only wish he was as strong as these guys.............Maybe then he would have won more slams....................................................Oh wait!!!!
 

Defcon

Hall of Fame
This thread is a joke. Roddick was able to serve hard and hit a big forehand, and yes that's not exactly talent. Talent is being able to hit that big forehand from many spots and types of balls.

Roddick had zero strategy, tactics, court awareness, situational awareness, adaptability, or any brains.

He abandoned his weapons and went back to hitting loopers because some coach told him to. He went around abusing linespeople and umpires to look 'ccol'. He was your typical American jock, zero brains, all swagger and muscle, and nothing to show for it. His one slam title should never have been his if Nalby hadn't been cheated and Andy didn't get such preferential scheduling.

The serve IS the most important stroke and because of that Andy as able to get far but was never really a threat to the top guys.

Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented. Roddick's comical suicidal net rushes throughout his entire career, with zero thought behind any of them, and his atrocious volleys, are enough to brand his as one of the dumbest ever to play the game.
 
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
Which no other major has, and done against a former Wimbledon champion. Because of this, world number 2 Hewitt had to face world number 1 Federer in the semi finals, while a below par Roddick staggered through to the final in the other half of the draw.

Yeah, but I thought there was something illegal about it.

Anyway, I agree with you that Hewitt was just unlucky because he had to face Federer in Slams back then, sometimes in earlier rounds (QF, 4th round etc). But, winning Wimbledon, four titles at Queen's and losing only to Federer in 2004 and 2005 makes him a very good grass court player.
 

90's Clay

Banned
This thread is a joke. Roddick was able to serve hard and hit a big forehand, and yes that's not exactly talent. Talent is being able to hit that big forehand from many spots and types of balls.

Roddick had zero strategy, tactics, court awareness, situational awareness, adaptability, or any brains.

He abandoned his weapons and went back to hitting loopers because some coach told him to. He went around abusing linespeople and umpires to look 'ccol'. He was your typical American jock, zero brains, all swagger and muscle, and nothing to show for it. His one slam title should never have been his if Nalby hadn't been cheated and Andy didn't get such preferential scheduling.

The serve IS the most important stroke and because of that Andy as able to get far but was never really a threat to the top guys.

Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented. Roddick's comical suicidal net rushes throughout his entire career, with zero thought behind any of them, and his atrocious volleys, are enough to brand his as one of the dumbest ever to play the game.


Great post. Finally someone with a brain
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This thread is a joke. Roddick was able to serve hard and hit a big forehand, and yes that's not exactly talent. Talent is being able to hit that big forehand from many spots and types of balls.

Roddick had zero strategy, tactics, court awareness, situational awareness, adaptability, or any brains.

He abandoned his weapons and went back to hitting loopers because some coach told him to. He went around abusing linespeople and umpires to look 'ccol'. He was your typical American jock, zero brains, all swagger and muscle, and nothing to show for it. His one slam title should never have been his if Nalby hadn't been cheated and Andy didn't get such preferential scheduling.

The serve IS the most important stroke and because of that Andy as able to get far but was never really a threat to the top guys.

Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented. Roddick's comical suicidal net rushes throughout his entire career, with zero thought behind any of them, and his atrocious volleys, are enough to brand his as one of the dumbest ever to play the game.

The only joke in this post is you. Roddick has more talent in his pinky than in your entire body. It shows when you talk nonsense like this.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Right but if not for 2011 God Mode Nole, Nadal would already be close to Fed in the slam count (1 off) and easily would have broke this year or even last

clueless, nole denied federer AO 08, AO 11 & possibly USO 11 ...he denied rafa wim 11, possibly USO 11 and possibly AO 12 ...so without him, how the hell does nadal be close to fed in slam count ?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal wasn't number 1 one though in his match against Rosol or Darcis nor the defending champion, and both of those guys actually have decent ground games.Still, you have a point that Nadal's losses were as embarrassing, but I think everyone can agree that Nadal has lost it on grass.

Hewitt was considered one of the best baseliners and returners in the world and for him to get smashed by Karlovic 6-3 6-4 in the last 2 sets was a ridiculous sight to see.

I'm not underrating Hewitt. He is a 2 time slam winner and I already said I think he is greater than Roddick, but what I see more often is people overrating him and acting like he was some all-time great who got stopped in his tracks by Federer. You can see many people try to put Hewitt light years ahead of Murray and justify it by saying "He played prime Federer" while not extending the same consideration to Murray, who had to deal with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, or the various other players who had tough competition in the past.

So, I don't see how I'm underrating Hewitt in that particular post you quoted. Federer and Hewitt's matches were indeed very poor in 2004. You can go to youtube and watch them again and see how dull the atmosphere was. Winner after winner used to fly from Federer's racquet; Federer's shotmaking was the only reason to tune in. He was the kind of player who used to get to the final against Federer and then lose even worse than Federer's early round opponents did to him.

That's because federer nearly always brought out his best vs him. hamburg 04 and USO 04, federer was absolutely ruthless and it showed.

When he was somewhat looser like Wim 04 or AO 04, the matches were competitive.

Has djokovic lost more than 7 games in his last 3 matches vs rafa ? no ... but he's been losing sets to other players ... has he not ?

I see very few, if any, putting Hewitt light years ahead of Murray. ahead yes, light years, no.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
This thread is a joke. Roddick was able to serve hard and hit a big forehand, and yes that's not exactly talent. Talent is being able to hit that big forehand from many spots and types of balls.

Roddick had zero strategy, tactics, court awareness, situational awareness, adaptability, or any brains.

He abandoned his weapons and went back to hitting loopers because some coach told him to. He went around abusing linespeople and umpires to look 'ccol'. He was your typical American jock, zero brains, all swagger and muscle, and nothing to show for it. His one slam title should never have been his if Nalby hadn't been cheated and Andy didn't get such preferential scheduling.

The serve IS the most important stroke and because of that Andy as able to get far but was never really a threat to the top guys.

Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented. Roddick's comical suicidal net rushes throughout his entire career, with zero thought behind any of them, and his atrocious volleys, are enough to brand his as one of the dumbest ever to play the game.

I don't think any player can possibly be as bad as the bolded points indicate and still manage to make it out of Challengers consistently, insane serve or no, much less pull off what Roddick managed to.

Also, Nalby in 03? That idiot fan everyone remembers called out when Roddick was hitting his shot. That match was Nalbandian's to lose in the breaker, especially considering he was up a minibreak and gave it back on an UE, and he let it slip away. I'll give you he got screwed late in the 5th, but by then his best effort for the match was long gone in the rearview mirror, and the writing was very much on the wall.

And yeah, Hewitt > Roddick in terms of talent, but a lot of people on the tour past and present > Roddick in terms of talent, and yet Roddick still won quite a few matches on the big stage. Hmm. You'd almost think that maybe Roddick wasn't a bum, but somehow I don't think everyone's ready to accept that.
 
Last edited:

Matt H.

Professional
I have Roddick over Hewitt because after 2005 Hewitt just simply wasn't even a thought on tour. I can name only 2 moments post 2005 for Hewitt: 09 Wimbledon and this past US Open where he took out Delpo yet still didn't make the quarters.

Roddick was making slam quarters and semis on a fairly regular basis for a much longer time frame.

Look at how many times Hewitt failed to get out of the 1st rd in his home Slam? For Roddick it only happened once.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
I put Safin, Roddick, Murray, Hewitt on the same level. Fed robbed them all a bit, so maybe they are about Courier level. Comparing them with Djokovic, Becker is not fair. They are a tier below. Even if we Remove Fed, I don't see them winning 6-8 majors. Courier level is about the same.

The reason I put them below Nole. They all have two common flaws. They all have one very weak surface and they can't consistently beat top guys on big matches.

I mean Nole was able to consistently beat Fedal at their best surfaces and also doesn't have a weak surface.

So, the differences between Murray, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt are so small, we can't really put anyone above the rest by some margins.

They all have pros and cons. Roddick just won 1 slam, but he was so consistent at the top. Safin's peak is probably the highest defeating Fed and Sampras, but he was so inconsistent. Murray is very consistent, but he is helped by homogenization and didn't go trough Fedal to win his titles.
Hewitt is amazing player, but he doesn't have any real weapons that stand out, to hurt players with.

So, this is my reasoning why I can't really put anyone above the rest.

A good post and I think you give the proper respects to these players. I'd love to see a Nadal-Roddick Wimbledon during their peaks or a Hewitt-Murray U.S. Open final.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Yeah, perhaps a lizard brain. The post is pure rubbish -- an extreme exaggeration of Andy's flaws.

.

Coming from arguably the best poster in this section, apparently being able to serve 140mph at 18 years old is talent. He was also wrong about Roddick's forehand; That guy could hit big off many types of balls, just watch his matches in Dubai or Miami where he just flicks the switch.









And lastly, whoever wrote that Safin is on the same level as Murray, Roddick and Hewitt is a joke. From a technical standpoint Safin is ahead of these guys. Federer robbed Safin? Dunno about that, Federer lucked out with Safin at AO 2004, Safin at 100% would have more than likely won the final.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
safin was clearly worse in AO 04 than he was in AO 05 and he barely won vs federer in AO 05 and he could've lost that in 4 ...

80% chance that he loses the AO 04 final anyways ....
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So, the differences between Murray, Safin, Roddick and Hewitt are so small, we can't really put anyone above the rest by some margins.

Nevertheless, Hewitt, Safin and Murray's extra Slam puts them ahead of Roddick. Results count.

They all have pros and cons. Roddick just won 1 slam, but he was so consistent at the top. Safin's peak is probably the highest defeating Fed and Sampras, but he was so inconsistent. Murray is very consistent, but he is helped by homogenization and didn't go trough Fedal to win his titles.

He won 1 Slam on hardcourt and 1 on grass. That's 2 clearly different surfaces (and to argue otherwise is plainly ridiculous). Plus he didn't need to go through Fedal to win them as, in each case, he played the world # 2 and world #1 in the final.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
safin was clearly worse in AO 04 than he was in AO 05 and he barely won vs federer in AO 05 and he could've lost that in 4 ...

80% chance that he loses the AO 04 final anyways ....

Did you not see the AO 2005 final? At times he was down right terrible. The only reason people seem to think his 2005 was more impressive was because of his SF win, which wasn't even the best tennis he's played. However, what was impressive, was his fighting spirit and mental strength, especially in those last two matches against players who are considered by many, mental giants.





As for AO 2004, IMO he wins. Don't like it? Tough. Safin beat the #1 and #3 player(s) in the world at that tournament and was gassed for the final. Your opinion is fine by me, but I'm allowed my opinion too. Federer got extremely lucky at AO 2004.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Nevertheless, Hewitt, Safin and Murray's extra Slam puts them ahead of Roddick. Results count.


Results count in debates such as 'who achieved more? and who is GOAT?'. Not who is the better player. By that reckoning, Murray and Djokovic are better than Goran on grass? Get my point?





In terms of achievements, Safin and Roddick are the lesser two, however, if you dig deeper, you would understand when comparing who the better player is, results are pretty redundant.



Roddick is a better grasscourter than Murray, peak for peak. Murray just played in a time which allowed him to win a Wimbledon. I doubt he wins Wimbledon from 2003-2010 in his peak, same with Djokovic. Hewitt hasn't won a slam since like 2002 and his last slam final was in 2005, Safin would have had the better career than everyone on that list if it wasn't for injuries because he has shown on multiple occasions the ability to beat anyone on the biggest stage.
 
Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented..

How could Hewitt have done "more with far less," yet have been more talented? That does not make sense. The two are mutually exclusive. If Hewitt had less, that means he was less talented.

Andy Roddick had the biggest serve in the history of tennis and could absolutely crush forehands. How is that not talent? You think the typical tennis player has the ability to do those things? I'm pretty sure if they could, they would do exactly that.

After all, how many tennis players in the world could say they had better tennis careers than Andy Roddick? Not many.

People in this thread talked about "giving Hewitt Roddick's serve and he would have won blah blah blah."

Well, what if you gave Roddick Hewitt's return? He would have been an all-time great.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Did you not see the AO 2005 final? At times he was down right terrible. The only reason people seem to think his 2005 was more impressive was because of his SF win, which wasn't even the best tennis he's played. However, what was impressive, was his fighting spirit and mental strength, especially in those last two matches against players who are considered by many, mental giants.


As for AO 2004, IMO he wins. Don't like it? Tough. Safin beat the #1 and #3 player(s) in the world at that tournament and was gassed for the final. Your opinion is fine by me, but I'm allowed my opinion too. Federer got extremely lucky at AO 2004.

hilarious, he beat #1 & #3 in 2005 as well, only he won the tournament as well...

and yes, 2005 AO was his absolute best tennis ... you could argue USO 00 final, but the AO 05 SF was more impressive in ways more than one since he had to sustain it for 5 sets vs federer in top flight.

Did you see how terrible safin was in the first set vs roddick in 04 ? safin was only terrible in the first set vs hewitt ...its funny how you think its ok for him to go 5 sets vs roddick, but not 4 sets vs hewitt in his best run at the AO :roll:

AO 04, like I've showed you before, he was struggling prior to the second set vs roddick, going 5 sets vs old todd martin, mind you , an old , well past his best , todd martin ... he lost sets in other matches as well obviously

vs agassi, he played really well, but still had to save set points in both set 1 and set 2 to win and tanked set 4 after going down a break. Is that the best you expect from safin ? really ?

A little bit of common sense would also help -- he was rusty coming into AO 04 ... as far as AO 05 is concerned, he'd won madrid, paris and reached SF of TMC, losing to federer and was in perfect condition and that was the best tournament he's played.

federer's lead in the h2h vs safin is overwhelming

opinions are fine, but they should be atleast somewhat based on facts.

IF we're talking about luck, well , I could go much further down that route ... safin got lucky that federer SnVed on 2nd serve on MP; got lucky not to go down 2 BPs late in the 5th when a BH DTL he hit was out but not called out; got lucky with federer's foot injury in the 5th set ....
 
Last edited:

edmondsm

Legend
Roddick might have had 4-5 more slams if it weren't for Federer. I can't say the same for Hewitt. Hewitt peaked very young and by the time he was in his mid-20s there were a lot of players that could beat him.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Results count in debates such as 'who achieved more? and who is GOAT?'. Not who is the better player.

Because, quite often, achieving more is a result of being the better player!

By that reckoning, Murray and Djokovic are better than Goran on grass? Get my point?

Not really. Djokovic and Murray have the same number of Wimbledon titles as Goran and each beat a former Wimbledon champion in order to do it. I grant you, Goran currently has 2 more Wimbledon finals on his CV but Djokovic and Murray may well equal or surpass that before they are done. Moreover v Murray, Goran has only 2 grasscourt titles and never won Queens, the main lead-up tourney to Wimbledon. Murray has 3 Queens titles in addition to his Wimbledon title and is one of the few players to do the Queens-Wimbledon double. Goran never did this.

In terms of achievements, Safin and Roddick are the lesser two, however, if you dig deeper, you would understand when comparing who the better player is, results are pretty redundant.

I do not believe you can completely separate 'achievement' and 'better'.

Roddick is a better grasscourter than Murray, peak for peak. Murray just played in a time which allowed him to win a Wimbledon. I doubt he wins Wimbledon from 2003-2010 in his peak, same with Djokovic.

Murray is 2-1 v Roddick on grass and 1-1 at Wimbledon (he beat him there in 2006 when Roddick was a top player and Murray still an up and coming teenager). Roddick also played at a time he could have won Wimbledon ie. in 2009 when he had plenty of chances to win that final but didn't do so. Murray took advantage of his chances. Roddick didn't.


Hewitt hasn't won a slam since like 2002 and his last slam final was in 2005, Safin would have had the better career than everyone on that list if it wasn't for injuries because he has shown on multiple occasions the ability to beat anyone on the biggest stage.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. That we can never know for sure, can we?
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
This thread is a joke. Roddick was able to serve hard and hit a big forehand, and yes that's not exactly talent. Talent is being able to hit that big forehand from many spots and types of balls.

Roddick had zero strategy, tactics, court awareness, situational awareness, adaptability, or any brains.

He abandoned his weapons and went back to hitting loopers because some coach told him to. He went around abusing linespeople and umpires to look 'ccol'. He was your typical American jock, zero brains, all swagger and muscle, and nothing to show for it. His one slam title should never have been his if Nalby hadn't been cheated and Andy didn't get such preferential scheduling.

The serve IS the most important stroke and because of that Andy as able to get far but was never really a threat to the top guys.

Hewitt has achieved a lot more with far less, is a much more complete player and certainly more talented. Roddick's comical suicidal net rushes throughout his entire career, with zero thought behind any of them, and his atrocious volleys, are enough to brand his as one of the dumbest ever to play the game.

Great post. Finally someone with a brain

Noooo, Defcon's use of hyperbole does not come off as particularly astute/intelligent or insightful. You guys actually come off like haters more than anything else.

Roddick could hardly be characterized as brainless. No ATP player remains in the top 10 for most of a decade if they are just a a dumb jock with a big serve. Like every other player, ARod had some weaknesses/flaws. However, he possessed enough talent and brains to remain at the top (10) for more years than most.

Note that Andy's intelligence (IQ) is well above average. Sources have his IQ at greater than 130. He has proven himself to be articulate and insightful in interviews. These skills have landed him a job as a co-host on Fox Sports Live where he provides analysis and opinion. He has also displayed a well-developed sense of humor... another unmistakeable sign of insight and intelligence.

Roddick's volley skills were not that bad at all. It was usually mediocre approach shots that would sometimes get him into trouble at the net, not usually his volleys. ARod actually fared rather decently in doubles -- he had 4 ATP doubles titles to his name and won just a bit under 60% of his doubles matches. Hardly sounds like the accomplishments of a player who could not volley.
 

RudyHuxtable

Semi-Pro
I think this is an interesting argument, but not as cut-and-dry as many posters are attempting to make it.
I preface this by saying that Roddick and Hewitt are two of my all-time favorites, and I wished their rivalry had been given more opportunity to grow.
When discussing each player at their respective best, they approached the game very differently.
The "what-if" arguments are certainly tipped in Roddick's favor. It is difficult to argue "what if Hewitt hadn't spent so much time injured", because that is a direct hazard of the way he plays. It is a side effect of the strength of his play.
Roddick, on the other hand, had to face the Roger Federer in his most formidable years at every slam final he reached outside of the U.S. Open title he won.
It is evident that Roddick had much bigger weapons, and that Hewitt was more well-rounded. I loved the way that Roddick used to completely attack the ball, and the subtlety and variety with which Hewitt approaches the game.
I believe that in head-to-head matches, at their respective peaks, it would be a coin flip dependent upon the day and the surface. Hewitt matched up well against Roddick, but I think Roddick had more potential to win slams and titles against the rest of the field. Roddick also gets the nod in the longevity department, which accounts for a great deal. Later in their careers (up until very recently for Hewitt) it wasn't all that close.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
hilarious, he beat #1 & #3 in 2005 as well, only he won the tournament as well...

and yes, 2005 AO was his absolute best tennis ... you could argue USO 00 final, but the AO 05 SF was more impressive in ways more than one since he had to sustain it for 5 sets vs federer in top flight.

Did you see how terrible safin was in the first set vs roddick in 04 ? safin was only terrible in the first set vs hewitt ...its funny how you think its ok for him to go 5 sets vs roddick, but not 4 sets vs hewitt in his best run at the AO :roll:

AO 04, like I've showed you before, he was struggling prior to the second set vs roddick, going 5 sets vs old todd martin, mind you , an old , well past his best , todd martin ... he lost sets in other matches as well obviously

vs agassi, he played really well, but still had to save set points in both set 1 and set 2 to win and tanked set 4 after going down a break. Is that the best you expect from safin ? really ?

A little bit of common sense would also help -- he was rusty coming into AO 04 ... as far as AO 05 is concerned, he'd won madrid, paris and reached SF of TMC, losing to federer and was in perfect condition and that was the best tournament he's played.

federer's lead in the h2h vs safin is overwhelming

opinions are fine, but they should be atleast somewhat based on facts.

IF we're talking about luck, well , I could go much further down that route ... safin got lucky that federer SnVed on 2nd serve on MP; got lucky not to go down 2 BPs late in the 5th when a BH DTL he hit was out but not
called out; got lucky with federer's foot injury in the 5th set ....



Whilst I'm fine with your opinion that Federer would have won, I still feel Safin would have pulled through. As for your arguments, Safin came out of the gates slow at the 04 QF and was injured in that first set, an he beat the #1 and #3 prior to the final ie he proved he could beat the inform player before playing Federer.




I am talking about facts, what was made up from my original post? Going 5 sets against Agassi and beating the best AO player (along with Djokovic and Federer) is still impressive; Just because it wasn't a blow out doesn't mean Safin played crap. Some people set the standard too high for Safin; A couple of sets lost here and there don't mean anything.







I do however, think your last point is flawed. In what way was Safin lucky Federer S&V'd on MP? Who's to say Safin would have lost if Federer stayed back? BTW Federer did absolutely nothing wrong as it was a great second serve (one that is paraded as one of the best and a great reflex volley). Safin's lob was just insane and Federer couldn't pull off the tweener - although Safin had it covered. Please don't act like Federer was a victim of injury either - especially to a Safin fan of all people :roll:. Federer was moving and playing fine, in fact I think Federer and Safin in the 4th and 5th set were playing the best tennis of their career's - the only reason I say Safin or Federer weren't at their best for the whole match was because there were at times dips in the first 2 sets, however the last 3 showcased some of the best display in shotmaking between two players simultaneously.





As I've said, I think Safin would have won if he was 100% in the final. I have no problems with people disagreeing because Federer is a great player. All I conclude for sure is that with Safin not being at 100% physically and mentally before and in the final, we missed an epic match for sure.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Because, quite often, achieving more is a result of being the better player!


Key word being quite often.




I do not believe you can completely separate 'achievement' and 'better'.


I believe you can. From a technical standpoint. Not a mental standpoint. This was my initial point. Yes, quite often the more achieved player is the better player. Safin, in this case, is clearly an anomaly.


Murray is 2-1 v Roddick on grass and 1-1 at Wimbledon (he beat him there in 2006 when Roddick was a top player and Murray still an up and coming teenager). Roddick also played at a time he could have won Wimbledon ie. in 2009 when he had plenty of chances to win that final but didn't do so. Murray took advantage of his chances. Roddick didn't.

h2h is pretty pointless, especially with Roddick and Murray. Murray's prime coincided with pusher Roddick who hit 0 forehand winners a year. Yes, Murray took his chances, fair play to him. Roddick never got the luxury of playing Djokovic (a guy who was a good matchup for him) in the final. I still think Roddick of W03 and W04 was a better than any version of Murray on grass, and maybe W09, but you need to look deeper - opponent they fell too. The fact that Murray at W 2012 lost to a past prime Federer worse than Roddick did at Wimbledon 2004 (when Federer lost like 3 matches that year I swear) tells the story in my opinion, especially how Roddick is a lovely matchup for Federer, whilst Murray has always shown promise against Federer.


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. That we can never know for sure, can we?


Are you trying to be objective to annoy, or because you genuinely believe Safin would have failed to win another major without all those injuries specifically his 2005 injury?



Ask any tennis fan, they will tell you that Safin would have more than likely become the 3rd superpower in tennis from years 2005-2010 without his knee injury, although not as consistent as the others due to not being as motivated and being a mental nutcase at times.




You can go ahead and say Safin would have not won another major, but I think he's proved himself on a number of occasions.






And yes, Safin IS a better tennis player than Murray technically. This can't really be argued. Safin has beaten every great player on their best surfaces save for Nadal - who he never played against in a major.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Roddick might have had 4-5 more slams if it weren't for Federer. I can't say the same for Hewitt. Hewitt peaked very young and by the time he was in his mid-20s there were a lot of players that could beat him.

2004 Australian Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 US Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 Masters Cup: Hewitt twice beaten by Federer
2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2005 US Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
2004 Australian Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 Wimbledon: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 US Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2004 Masters Cup: Hewitt twice beaten by Federer
2005 Wimbledon: Hewitt beaten by Federer
2005 US Open: Hewitt beaten by Federer

A lot of these weren't finals, whereas Roddick lost a few / all of his slam finals to Federer, didn't he?
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
A lot of these weren't finals, whereas Roddick lost a few / all of his slam finals to Federer, didn't he?

Also, Roddick's performance at the W04 final was a lot more respectable than Hewitt's W04 showing against Federer. Hewitt never ever looked like winning that match and lost sets 6-0 and 6-1. Mustard clings to the fact the scoreline was tighter, but in no way shape or form was it closer to the 04 final, which was truly anyone's match.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Whilst I'm fine with your opinion that Federer would have won, I still feel Safin would have pulled through. As for your arguments, Safin came out of the gates slow at the 04 QF and was injured in that first set, an he beat the #1 and #3 prior to the final ie he proved he could beat the inform player before playing Federer.

Never said otherwise, did I ? He could've won is different from saying he'd have won.


I am talking about facts, what was made up from my original post? Going 5 sets against Agassi and beating the best AO player (along with Djokovic and Federer) is still impressive; Just because it wasn't a blow out doesn't mean Safin played crap. Some people set the standard too high for Safin; A couple of sets lost here and there don't mean anything.

actually it does, it very clearly establishes that his 04 form was lesser than his 05 form overall. As far as peaks in those tournaments go ....

You cannot tell me that a Safin who had to tank a set 6-1 and had to save set points in 2 sets that he won in 04 vs agassi ( who was slightly below his best ) was better than the safin who showed up vs top flight federer in 05

I do however, think your last point is flawed. In what way was Safin lucky Federer S&V'd on MP? Who's to say Safin would have lost if Federer stayed back? BTW Federer did absolutely nothing wrong as it was a great second serve (one that is paraded as one of the best and a great reflex volley). Safin's lob was just insane and Federer couldn't pull off the tweener - although Safin had it covered. Please don't act like Federer was a victim of injury either - especially to a Safin fan of all people :roll:. Federer was moving and playing fine, in fact I think Federer and Safin in the 4th and 5th set were playing the best tennis of their career's - the only reason I say Safin or Federer weren't at their best for the whole match was because there were at times dips in the first 2 sets, however the last 3 showcased some of the best display in shotmaking between two players simultaneously.

actually, I think the first 4 sets were of about even quality, with the 5th set quality being lower, but drama being higher.

and yes, federer did have a foot injury. Its why he took a MTO. I don't bring it up often because I don't want to pull down the match. But it is what it is.

Federer's movement was that fraction slower in the 5th.

Safin’s winners by set: 8, 5, 5, 6, 18.
Federer’s winners by set: 9, 6, 10, 11, 11.

Look at Safin’s jump in the fifth. After four sets, in fact, Federer was leading in winners by 36 to 24. In the fifth set Safin hit 14 ground stroke winners, as many as he’d hit in the previous four sets.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=186895

About the SnV on MP, I don't necessarily think federer would have won if he had stayed back, but he'd have a better chance than he did by approaching the net. That particular second serve wasn't that good and safin obviously at his best is ruthless at punishing 2nd serves.

As I've said, I think Safin would have won if he was 100% in the final. I have no problems with people disagreeing because Federer is a great player. All I conclude for sure is that with Safin not being at 100% physically and mentally before and in the final, we missed an epic match for sure.

yes, the match would've surely been better had safin been fully rested. I'd think federer would take it in 4 competitive sets like he did vs nalbandian at the AO or vs roddick in 04 W.

but that is different from saying safin would win when the evidence :

a) his AO 04 form was clearly lesser than his AO 05 form ; at his best, he barely managed to avoid losing in 4 sets in 05 vs federer.

b) his h2h vs federer overall.


show otherwise.


So, there is no point in saying federer was lucky in 04 , because its very likely he beats safin anyways.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
A lot of these weren't finals, whereas Roddick lost a few / all of his slam finals to Federer, didn't he?

It weren't final because they met earlier, but who can say how far he could have gone if he hadn't met Federer? I don't think you would discard Djokovic chance to win RG 2013 because he lost to Nadal in the SF instead of the final would you?

Also in RG 2004 he lost to Gaudio (champion), in RG 2005 to Nadal (Champion), in AO 2005 to Safin (Champion).

In two years he only lost to the eventual champion!
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It weren't final because they met earlier, but who can say how far he could have gone if he hadn't met Federer? I don't think you would discard Djokovic chance to win RG 2013 because he lost to Nadal in the SF instead of the final would you?

Also in RG 2004 he lost to Gaudio (champion), in RG 2005 to Nadal (Champion), in AO 2005 to Safin (Champion).

In two years he only lost to the eventual champion!
He did not play RG in 2005
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
It weren't final because they met earlier, but who can say how far he could have gone if he hadn't met Federer? I don't think you would discard Djokovic chance to win RG 2013 because he lost to Nadal in the SF instead of the final would you?

Also in RG 2004 he lost to Gaudio (champion), in RG 2005 to Nadal (Champion), in AO 2005 to Safin (Champion).

In two years he only lost to the eventual champion!
I see the point you're trying to make, I don't think it is very persuasive.

Not because I'm a rabid Roddick fan (although I do have a soft spot for him until I remember he is married to Decker), but because what you're suggesting is that were it not for Federer, Hewitt would've strung a few more wins to win the tournament outright; wins that we have no basis to assume he would've won.

I recognise that to assume Roddick would've won more slams without Federer also requires a leap of faith, but at least it's one match, not several, and even then it's probably still a bit of a stretch as well. Still, at least he already made it to the final, whereas Hewitt would've had to win one, two, or more first to even get there.
 
Last edited:

Mustard

Bionic Poster
A lot of these weren't finals, whereas Roddick lost a few / all of his slam finals to Federer, didn't he?

I've already explained why in this thread, because Hewitt started 2004 ranked at world number 17, so was meeting Federer earlier in the draws. Roddick was in the top 2 throughout 2004.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I see the point you're trying to make, I don't think it is very persuasive.

Not because I'm a rabid Roddick fan (although I do have a soft spot for him until I remember he is married to Decker), but because what you're suggesting is that were it not for Federer, Hewitt would've strung a few more wins to win the tournament outright; wins that we have no basis to assume he would've won.

I recognise that to assume Roddick would've won more slams without Federer also requires a leap of faith, but at least it's one match, not several, and even then it's probably still a bit of a stretch as well. Still, at least he already made it to the final, whereas Hewitt would've had to win one, two, or more first to even get there.

I agree with you, but the fact that he only lost to the eventual champion, I think, dismiss the argument like "Hewitt was bad because he didn't even reach the SF".
 

GoaLaSSo

Semi-Pro
Roddick and Hewitt are two of my favorite players. I would say they are pretty close all around.

Hewitt has more majors, but Roddick was consistently good for a decade.

With a bit more luck, Roddick could have won a few more slams.

I tire of people saying Hewitt had no power and Roddick was a bad mover (and that both weren't extremely talented.)

Hewitt could hit the ball very hard and flat when he wanted to, but it doesn't fit his style. Roddick was athletic and had very fast raw speed, but his footwork was not federer-esque. Roddick would often give up on some of his defensive shots out of frustration and/or to conserve energy for his service games. This gave people the impression that he was slow, which is not true.

Both guys were extremely talented and hard working. I can't see how you could argue against either of those things.
 
Last edited:

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Roddick and Hewitt are two of my favorite players. I would say they are pretty close all around.

Hewitt has more majors, but Roddick was consistently good for a decade.

With a bit more luck, Roddick could have won a few more slams.

I tire of people saying Hewitt had no power and Roddick was a bad mover (and that both weren't extremely talented.)

Hewitt could hit the ball very hard and flat when he wanted to, but it doesn't fit his style. Roddick was athletic and had very fast raw speed, but his footwork was not federer-esque. Roddick would often give up on some of his defensive shots out of frustration and/or to conserve energy for his service games. This gave people the impression that he was slow, which is not true.

Both guys were extremely talented and hard working. I can't see how you could argue against either of those things.

Oh, it comes easier for some than others. Look on page 9, for instance.
 
Top