Roddick will eventually be number one in the world (Again)

coloskier

Legend
The only way to beat Federer is to catch him on a off day or play him on clay. Canas caught him on a off day, twice. How many times has Federer actually lost on anything but clay in the past three years. 4 times? 5? That means he has had 5 off days in three years!!! I think most of us has 5 off days every week/month.
 

gerikoh

Semi-Pro
hey, murray defeated federer last year coz of his consistency.

you can't beat federer if:
you are inconsistent
you don't like crosscourt shots
you don't like to run around
you are impatient
you show an obvious weakness(roddick's backhand)
 
Yes you heard it here first. Roddick will soon be number one in the world. Here are my reasons.

1. Andy is one year younger than Roger. That means he is one year further away from his prime than Federer. Roger is further along the development curve, but Andy will soon catch up.

Everyone hits their prime at the same age? Get over the age factor.

2. The only player who really gives Roddick a lot of trouble is Federer. But Andy plays exactly the kind of game that gives Federer trouble. Huge serves and huge groundstrokes. The only way to beat Federer is to overpower him. He can be intimidated by power. Andy showed this for a set and a half at Wimbledon. Soon Andy will be able to do it for a whole match.

Federer is one of the hardest people to ace, if not the hardest. Roddick doesn't have huge groundstrokes. Huge groundstrokes give every player trouble. That's very generic. Plus, their head to head speaks volumes.

3. Andy has a lot more to improve on than Roger. Roddick can improve on immensely his volleys, movement at the net, and general movement as well. He can improve his backhand. He has a lot to improve on in terms of the mental aspect. His shot selection can be a little suspect at times.

I have a lot to improve on as well. Does that mean I'm going to beat Federer? That's your dumbest argument yet.

4. Forget the 1-7 record against Federer. Most of the matches have been extremely close, often hinging on a few points here and there. When Roddick improves his play, more of those close matches will swing in Roddicks favor. The reason is this: Roddicks huge serve. In the future, many more of Roddick vs Federer matches will go into the tie-break, and a more improved Roddick will be able to capitalize on those tie breaks on account of his huge serve.

What are you basing this on? Roddick isn't improving that much, if at all.

I am not a fan of Roddick. In fact, I wanted to see Federer play Roddick in the final and give the petulant brat a royal whipping. But if I look at it objectively, I just don't see how Roddick will not eventually be number one in the world.

You don't like Roddick and you took the time to write this crap? That's even worse than if you were a Roddick fan. At least then you'd have an excuse. You've presented nothing of merit. I got bored and thought I'd humor you with a response.
 

Shabazza

Legend
I don't agree with this comment. Federer was beaten twice this year by Canas, a grinder who did not overpower him. Nalbandian and Hewitt used to give him a lot of trouble also. And now Nadal, the ultimate scrambler. I think it is clear that consistency is the key to beating Federer. And that is one area where Roddick has improved, admittedly.

You do realize that this thread is 3 years old?!-
Nadal and Canas showed that grinding is the way to put Federer under pressure, but of course Nadal wasn't around 3 year ago. The OP stated what many people thought 3 years ago, the you have to go for your shots against Federer. They've learned their lessons...
 

ktownva

Semi-Pro
You do realize that this thread is 3 years old?!-
Nadal and Canas showed that grinding is the way to put Federer under pressure, but of course Nadal wasn't around 3 year ago. The OP stated what many people thought 3 years ago, the you have to go for your shots against Federer. They've learned their lessons...

Haha, no I just realized the age of the thread. I guess 3-4 years ago people thought Fed was getting overpowered more than outlasted? I don't think that was true even back then. Roddick beat him in Canada by playing smart, and under control, not blasting everything. And Nalbandian did the same thing at the Open. Fed is too good at handling pace.
 

drgnpride

Rookie
2. The only player who really gives Roddick a lot of trouble is Federer. But Andy plays exactly the kind of game that gives Federer trouble. Huge serves and huge groundstrokes. The only way to beat Federer is to overpower him. He can be intimidated by power. Andy showed this for a set and a half at Wimbledon. Soon Andy will be able to do it for a whole match.

you lose all credibility with that statement. fed is one of the best returners of power serves ever. name last time a huge server beat fed.
 
Roddick does not even come close to having more powerful groundstrokes then Federer either. Federer has not only much better groundstrokes, but much more powerful groundies. Off both forehand and backhand. There is no way Roddick "overpowers" Federer from the baseline, which pretty much nobody can do anyway, but certainly not Roddick especialy. Roddick's only hope to beat Federer is to serve him off the court, and hope Federer plays some sloppy games on his own serve.
 

Breaker

Legend
Roddick does not even come close to having more powerful groundstrokes then Federer either. Federer has not only much better groundstrokes, but much more powerful groundies. Off both forehand and backhand. There is no way Roddick "overpowers" Federer from the baseline, which pretty much nobody can do anyway, but certainly not Roddick especialy. Roddick's only hope to beat Federer is to serve him off the court, and hope Federer plays some sloppy games on his own serve.

In 2004 they were comparable in power, but ever since Roddick went to that loopy stuff on his forehand and his serve is more predictable now. Still, if he plays at his very best and can catch Fed on an off day he has a slight chance like at the Masters Cup last year, but that's his ONLY chance since Fed is too tough for five setters.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
Looking at the OP date of post it was written after the US Open 2004. This was when Roddick was still the second best behind Fed, as a matter of fact Hewitt was in the middle of his resurgence period too losing in the final (badly) to Fed. It's easy to knock the OP for this post but that time Fed was just completing his first year of dominance and Roddick was considered his main challenger. I honestly didn't think Roddick could get back to number one because Fed wasn't going to let it go, especially to Andy. But since it was still early one can make the assumption that he still had another shot at number one in him. 3 years (and Rafa Nadal, Novak Djokovic) later I don't see that ever happening. I didn't see it then and I definitely don't see it now. The real question should be, when will we see another American at number one? Not in a long time. Maybe 5-6 years from now.
 
The real question should be, when will we see another American at number one? Not in a long time. Maybe 5-6 years from now.

It would have to be someone we dont know anything about yet. Querrey and Young's potential is debateable but neither are future #1s. I think most all would agree on that much.
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
2003 Roddick definitely hit with more average pace than Federer, or almost anybody else on tour. His game then was vertical. He's usually shoot for the center of the court emphasizing depth and go inside-out to put you away. Now he plays a lateral and he uses inside-out where he should be using his BH.

His finish was different as well. I think he's one of the few pros whose finish actually went higher through their career. In 2003, he was finishing just above the waist, which helped flatten a stroke that already used a strong SW grip. Now he finishes around the chest.
 
2003 Roddick definitely hit with more average pace than Federer, or almost anybody else on tour. His game then was vertical. He's usually shoot for the center of the court emphasizing depth and go inside-out to put you away. Now he plays a lateral and he uses inside-out where he should be using his BH.

His finish was different as well. I think he's one of the few pros whose finish actually went higher through their career. In 2003, he was finishing just above the waist, which helped flatten a stroke that already used a strong SW grip. Now he finishes around the chest.

Lets see now:

1)Federer of 2003 was still nowhere near the same dominant Federer as the Federer of 2004-2007 anyway, so regardless if your statement was true it would not neccessarily have any bearing of how he would compare to the Federer of any future years. No Masters title, only once past the 4th round of a slam, nearly losing to Gaudio and Draper on hard courts, losing to Ferrero and a depleted Kuerten on hard courts, losing 3 straight times to Nalbandian, not even once being ranked #1 during the year despite 3 different guys being #1 at some point. This was Federer of 2003, still great, but barely a shadow of the next 4 years.

2)I dont agree with your statement anyway, and I saw all their matches and watching their matches indicated nothing of the sort. In Federer's 3 matches with Roddick, Federer doubled Roddick in winners in 2 of the 3 matches, and more then doubled Roddick in forehand winners. The one exception was the 1 of 3 matches Roddick won, where they were similar in both total winners and forehand winners. There is more to hitting winners then power for sure, but Roddick was definitely not overpowering Federer when they played, and he was not hitting anything as hard except the serve.

3)Roddick ended the year #1 in 2003 mostly due to Nalbandian, not due to being the superior player. Federer could not solve the Nalbandian riddle, losing twice in round of 16 in slams, and early in a Masters event too. This is the same Nalbandian who choked away the match vs Roddick in the U.S Open semis that year. This loss of points allowed Roddick to eke out the #1 ranking, and also win the U.S Open title, even though he had great trouble beating Federer head to head even then.

Roddick certainly did not attain the year #1 ranking for 2003 because he was too powerful for Federer, not by the slightest stretch of the imagination. He did it because he was a more consistent performer then Federer that year, more consistently playing closer to his best from tournament to tournament. That combined with the fact Roddick did not have a personal nemisis he kept running into who curtailed his progress in various events, the way Federer did with Nalbandian.
 
Last edited:

fastdunn

Legend
In today's game, it's pretty much about who has better baseline
game.

Nadal is only one who can beat Federer in baseline rally
(on clay, even on grass allthough the serve saved Federer at Wimbledon).

I actually think Roddick should improve his serve to beat Federer.
His has huge pace and spin but it lacks variety and very very predictable.
Federer out-aces Roddick every time thay play.

I think Roddick has better chance to improve his serve than to improve
his baseline play.
 
In today's game, it's pretty much about who has better baseline
game.

Nadal is only one who can beat Federer in baseline rally
(on clay, even on grass allthough the serve saved Federer at Wimbledon).

I actually think Roddick should improve his serve to beat Federer.
His has huge pace and spin but it lacks variety and very very predictable.
Federer out-aces Roddick every time thay play.

I think Roddick has better chance to improve his serve than to improve
his baseline play.

In fairness keep in mind Federer is a much better returner then Roddick. So just because Federer outaces him does not mean he is outserving him. If they had the exact same return of serve Roddick would probably have more aces. Also Roddick wins alot of free points by forced errors on the serve which dont show up in the stats.

Federer's serve is one of the very best in the game, but Roddick's is still probably better, but the Federer serve-return combined is better then Roddick serve-return combined, which is what is reflected when they play.
 

127mph

Semi-Pro
Yes you heard it here first. Roddick will soon be number one in the world. Here are my reasons.

1. Andy is one year younger than Roger. That means he is one year further away from his prime than Federer. Roger is further along the development curve, but Andy will soon catch up.

2. The only player who really gives Roddick a lot of trouble is Federer. But Andy plays exactly the kind of game that gives Federer trouble. Huge serves and huge groundstrokes. The only way to beat Federer is to overpower him. He can be intimidated by power. Andy showed this for a set and a half at Wimbledon. Soon Andy will be able to do it for a whole match.

3. Andy has a lot more to improve on than Roger. Roddick can improve on immensely his volleys, movement at the net, and general movement as well. He can improve his backhand. He has a lot to improve on in terms of the mental aspect. His shot selection can be a little suspect at times.

Roger has fewer things he can improve on. Maybe he can improve marginally on his backhands and volleys.

4. Forget the 1-7 record against Federer. Most of the matches have been extremely close, often hinging on a few points here and there. When Roddick improves his play, more of those close matches will swing in Roddicks favor. The reason is this: Roddicks huge serve. In the future, many more of Roddick vs Federer matches will go into the tie-break, and a more improved Roddick will be able to capitalize on those tie breaks on account of his huge serve.

I am not a fan of Roddick. In fact, I wanted to see Federer play Roddick in the final and give the petulant brat a royal whipping. But if I look at it objectively, I just don't see how Roddick will not eventually be number one in the world.

your first point has no relevance,

your second doesnt either. nadal whooped roddick in indian wells. Djokovic is better than roddick. Roddick will never make the semis of the french and wimbledon in the same year, djokovic did it this year.

your third point is right, he has more to improve, but at this point of a professionals career, you either have the abilities or you dont. if roddick didnt have the power game he wouldnt be in top 100.
 

fastdunn

Legend
In fairness keep in mind Federer is a much better returner then Roddick. So just because Federer outaces him does not mean he is outserving him. If they had the exact same return of serve Roddick would probably have more aces. Also Roddick wins alot of free points by forced errors on the serve which dont show up in the stats.

Federer's serve is one of the very best in the game, but Roddick's is still probably better, but the Federer serve-return combined is better then Roddick serve-return combined, which is what is reflected when they play.

of course, Federer has superior return and Roddick's serve returns
kinda suck. And I know you have valid points here.

But I put Federer's serve higher than Roddick's. Nadal once time
solved Roddick's on hard court. Look Gasquet solved it at Wimbledon.

Accuracy and variety is important. I think Federer has best serve in the game.
Only problem is that his serve goes off some times and there are ups and downs.

Top young players are beginning to rally pretty evenly with Federer.
(e.g. Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet).
But they have not solved Federer's serve yet.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
of course, Federer has superior return and Roddick's serve returns
kinda suck. And I know you have valid points here.

But I put Federer's serve higher than Roddick's. Nadal once time
solved Roddick's on hard court. Look Gasquet solved it at Wimbledon.

Accuracy and variety is important. I think Federer has best serve in the game.
Only problem is that his serve goes off some times and there are ups and downs.

Top young players are beginning to rally pretty evenly with Federer.
(e.g. Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet).
But they have not solved Federer's serve yet.

That's a very good point you made. On clay Fed's serve is taken out of the equation and therefore Nadal has an easier time solving the serve riddle. On grass the serve saved Fed. Especially in that final. Let's see how it goes from here for the rest of the year.
 
of course, Federer has superior return and Roddick's serve returns
kinda suck. And I know you have valid points here.

But I put Federer's serve higher than Roddick's. Nadal once time
solved Roddick's on hard court. Look Gasquet solved it at Wimbledon.

Accuracy and variety is important. I think Federer has best serve in the game.
Only problem is that his serve goes off some times and there are ups and downs.

Top young players are beginning to rally pretty evenly with Federer.
(e.g. Nadal, Djokovic, Gasquet).
But they have not solved Federer's serve yet.

That is true. Gasquet and Nadal have had more trouble returning Federer's serve then they did Roddick in the big matches they each played them this year. I have also seen Federer play Karlovic a couple times, and all the sets were tiebreaks, despite Karlovic having the worst overall baseline game in the top 100, worst return in the top 100, and not even being that great at the net. Federer had more trouble returning Karlovic's serve then he does Roddick's by far. So maybe Roddick doesnt have the best serve in the game.

I agree with you on one thing on Roddick's serve. You can definitely read it and it is very predictable. I remember Sampras's serve for example, the toss and action seemed the same all the time, no matter the serve, and it was almost impossible to read. Much more then with Roddick's serve. It still is a great serve, and a huge weapon for him, but not as effective as it could be perhaps.
 
Morrissey posed the question when will there be a US Mens No 1 again, and he thought it would not be for 5-6 years!! Looking at the mens game at the moment the Europeans seem to have taken a significant step ahead of the US/Aus etc, the mens game being dominated by a host of europeans, with all the best youngsters who are touted for the top also originating from Europe .. Murray, Djok, Gasquet etc etc. I think 5 to 6 years is way too optimistic, the Europeans will enjoy the next decade of dominating the game like that enjoyed by the US during Sampras, Agassi & Courier. Sorry to say it, but the Europeans are kicking ass in the mens game at the moment, and will do for years to come, the rest are just making up the draw!!
 

A-Rod6600

Rookie
Until Monday, Safin isn't in the top 10, and he certainly wasn't the two times they've played.

I don't think he's even played Massu or Gaudio this year, has he? So technically correct that he's not got a winning record against them, but he's not got a losing one either (nor against Safin, 1-1), I believe.
Actually he played Gaudio in the second round in Rome, Winning 6-1 7-6 showing one of his best match on clay. He hit 9 aces, was patient on the baseline and found his way to the net when possible. I wonder how he doesn't usually play that way on clay. He could have much greater chances.
 

rhubarb

Hall of Fame
Actually he played Gaudio in the second round in Rome, Winning 6-1 7-6 showing one of his best match on clay. He hit 9 aces, was patient on the baseline and found his way to the net when possible. I wonder how he doesn't usually play that way on clay. He could have much greater chances.

This year he did, yes. But not in 2004, which is when I wrote the post. Gaudio's 2007 form is nowhere near what it was (he has been thinking of retiring even), so it's not necessarily an indication that Roddick has got a lot better on clay.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
Morrissey posed the question when will there be a US Mens No 1 again, and he thought it would not be for 5-6 years!! Looking at the mens game at the moment the Europeans seem to have taken a significant step ahead of the US/Aus etc, the mens game being dominated by a host of europeans, with all the best youngsters who are touted for the top also originating from Europe .. Murray, Djok, Gasquet etc etc. I think 5 to 6 years is way too optimistic, the Europeans will enjoy the next decade of dominating the game like that enjoyed by the US during Sampras, Agassi & Courier. Sorry to say it, but the Europeans are kicking ass in the mens game at the moment, and will do for years to come, the rest are just making up the draw!!

I'm not worried about Americans taking on the number one spot to be honest. I actually prefer the Europeans dominating but I was mainly throwing out some numbers on when an American can be number one again. Remember things change quickly in tennis. In 2012-13 we'll be seeing alot of new blood by then. Fed, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt are probably retired by then or close to it and guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Gasquet are in their mid 20's taking up house in the top 5. There could be some 13-14 yr kid playing in an academy who could very well be number one by the time he's 20-21 yrs old. You never know. Don't ever count out a country with the resources and the money to produce future champions like America. Mostly the money.
 

A-Rod6600

Rookie
This year he did, yes. But not in 2004, which is when I wrote the post. Gaudio's 2007 form is nowhere near what it was (he has been thinking of retiring even), so it's not necessarily an indication that Roddick has got a lot better on clay.
I was there that day and i think Andy played great against Gaudio, who is not at his best but he's a tough opponent on clay, i mean he is a typical clay courter, he knows the secrets of clay. If that day Andy would have played as he usually does, he would have lost in straight sets.
 

coloskier

Legend
The state of Junior Mens Tennis in the USA is not good right now. Querrey, Damico, and Young are our best talents, and I don't see any way anyone of them will break the top 20 in the next 5 years.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
The state of Junior Mens Tennis in the USA is not good right now. Querrey, Damico, and Young are our best talents, and I don't see any way anyone of them will break the top 20 in the next 5 years.

I guess we can bump up this thread in 2012 to see if I got it right.
 

coloskier

Legend
I guess we can bump up this thread in 2012 to see if I got it right.

Agreed. Querrey did have a good win today over Karlovic, although he has beaten Karlovic before. Damico is from my neck of the woods, and I've seen him play a number of times and hit with a number of people who have hit with him. Right now he doesn't have the power that he needs to break into the big time. Young has the same issue. A good ball striker with not enough power to put away points when needed against the big boys.
 

shabby

Rookie
Again, a typical example of the Roddick hype which many posters (NamRanger) love to deny. Well, here it is folks.
 
Yes you heard it here first. Roddick will soon be number one in the world. Here are my reasons.

Andy is one year younger than Roger.

Well that is one fact that will never change.

That means he is one year further away from his prime than Federer.

Well I guess that point has long passed and it didnt matter much.

Roger is further along the development curve, but Andy will soon catch up.

In 2050 when they play the seniors tour together?

The only player who really gives Roddick a lot of trouble is Federer.

Boy how things change.

But Andy plays exactly the kind of game that gives Federer trouble.

That is a new revelation.

Huge serves and huge groundstrokes.

Oh if only the bolded part were really true.

The only way to beat Federer is to overpower him.

Nadal doesnt seem to realize this.

He can be intimidated by power.

Gonzo, Soderling, Blake, and Berdych must be confused then.

Andy showed this for a set and a half at Wimbledon. Soon Andy will be able to do it for a whole match.

Yeah it happened in Koyoong 2007.

Andy has a lot more to improve on than Roger. Roddick can improve on immensely his volleys, movement at the net, and general movement as well. He can improve his backhand. He has a lot to improve on in terms of the mental aspect.

Too bad your memo never reached him.

Roger has fewer things he can improve on. Maybe he can improve marginally on his backhands and volleys.

Turns out he hasnt had to improve much.

Forget the 1-7 record against Federer.

You are right it has only gotten worse since.

I am not a fan of Roddick. In fact, I wanted to see Federer play Roddick in the final and give the petulant brat a royal whipping.

Then many years later you should be happy with what you have witnessed time and time again even if your thread was an epic fail. :)

But if I look at it objectively, I just don't see how Roddick will not eventually be number one in the world.

If that is your form of objectivity than try to be less objective in the future then. :oops:
 

drwood

Professional
Again, a typical example of the Roddick hype which many posters (NamRanger) love to deny. Well, here it is folks.

Nothing compared to the even more extreme hype job Andy Murray, whose won as many sets in a slam final as I have.
 

shabby

Rookie
Nothing compared to the even more extreme hype job Andy Murray, whose won as many sets in a slam final as I have.

Roddick was tipped to win more slams than Murray. Murray was only hyped at Wimbledon and the USO this year. And no, Roddick gets the award here i'm afraid.
 

drwood

Professional
Roddick was tipped to win more slams than Murray. Murray was only hyped at Wimbledon and the USO this year. And no, Roddick gets the award here i'm afraid.

Well, Roddick HAS won more slams than Murray. Fail.

Murray was overhyped at the Australian -- being called the co-favorite over Fed and Djoker -- laughable, as well as at Wimbledon and the US Open.
 
Well, Roddick HAS won more slams than Murray. Fail.

Murray was overhyped at the Australian -- being called the co-favorite over Fed and Djoker -- laughable, as well as at Wimbledon and the US Open.

I agree Murray is overhyped but all the same it makes sense to for awhile anyway assume all his great performances in Masters events and vs other top players will translate into to the slams. Now that it clearly hasnt for awhile I think the hype and lauding of him as a favorite will die down for awhile, atleast until he actually does something bigger in a slam again.
 

drwood

Professional
I agree Murray is overhyped but all the same it makes sense to for awhile anyway assume all his great performances in Masters events and vs other top players will translate into to the slams. Now that it clearly hasnt for awhile I think the hype and lauding of him as a favorite will die down for awhile, atleast until he actually does something bigger in a slam again.

I agree, but at the same time, Roddick even at age 22 did more than Murray has already done, so at least Roddick justified some of the hype.

BTW, I expect Murray to win some slams (though I won't be disappointed at all if they go to Delpo instead), but as for now, there is no one as overhyped in the top 10 as Murray.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I agree Murray is overhyped but all the same it makes sense to for awhile anyway assume all his great performances in Masters events and vs other top players will translate into to the slams. Now that it clearly hasnt for awhile I think the hype and lauding of him as a favorite will die down for awhile, atleast until he actually does something bigger in a slam again.


Roddick around Murray's age had justified his hype. Murray has done nothing to justify his.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Perhaps you dont remember just how much hype was around Roddick back in the first half of this decade.


Regardless or not Roddick was contending for slams and actually won one. Murray has yet to even achieve another final, while Roddick from 2003-2006 made a slam final every year, and contended for every single one.



Those who said he was the next Sampras or Agassi were abit ridiculous and over the top, but Roddick by no means underachieved, considering there was this guy named Federer standing in his way.
 
Last edited:
Top