Sinner passes Roddick!

[Lleytonstation]

Roddick, how would you do against Sinner? I would never find out, as in my peak I would never make a slam main draw in this era.

 

[GabeT]

Not sure about this Roddrick dominating this era, but I don't think anything but a small minority think Roddick would be truly dominant right now. I think he would see clearly superior results to what he achieved in 2003-2009 though.

Perhaps you should consider whether these posters might be right about Roddick’s standing, rather than just attributing it to Fed bias

But this is exactly my point. They might be right. They might also be wrong. The reality is we have no clue, no way to prove this one way or the other. And when you notice that so many of the proponents of this theory are Fed fans it provides some indication of motivation

 

[GabeT]

He could have added a slam or 2 more but 15 slams pushes it way to far that must be trolling.

I’m sure there was some trolling. But the constant “Roddick would win so much more in this era” arguments are mainly proposed by (a group of) Fed fans.

 

[NatF]

But this is exactly my point. They might be right. They might also be wrong. The reality is we have no clue, no way to prove this one way or the other. And when you notice that so many of the proponents of this theory are Fed fans it provides some indication of motivation

No way to prove no, but we can reasonably posit that he at least has more of a chance at success in this era than one with peak Federer...

 

[helterskelter]

Yes popularity over level anyday.

Kim Kardashian > Tesla

Level is transferable and is all ultimately reducible to popularity. Because Taylor Swift is more popular than Roger Feddy, she must also be better at tennis than him (and at every other endeavor than him) and is thus a more difficult opponent to conquer.

 

[tennis_pro]

Level is transferable and is all ultimately reducible to popularity. Because Taylor Swift is more popular than Roger Feddy, she must also be better at tennis than him (and at every other endeavor than him) and is thus a more difficult opponent to conquer.

eeeee wot

This is again big 3 lensed tennis

Roddick was mediocre player. He was lucky that unlike Murray he played only roger.

While Andy played fedkovic.

Wasnt Djokovic 4-5 against this mediocre player?

 

[Racquet_smash]

Stupid claim

Nadal's serve is garbage. Sinner's serve is above average. You are overreaching

His 1st serve % is often below 50% which is subpar. Nadal also had a better 2nd serve.

 

[nolefam_2024]

His 1st serve % is often below 50% which is subpar. Nadal also had a better 2nd serve.

Is it really? You can check his stats anywhere. Its not below 50%.

 

[tennis_pro]

So now we have comparison based on looks instead of playing style?lol

Berdych was better looking too

 

[Lleytonstation]

Berdych was better looking too

Berdych wife was the first ATP wife I remember after Sampras.

 

[GabeT]

No way to prove no, but we can reasonably posit that he at least has more of a chance at success in this era than one with peak Federer...

Agree. But I’m addressing a different point.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that Roddick would have done better without Federer around. But that tells us nothing about how the general competition in his era, excluding Federer (ie the competition Federer faced), fares relative to today’s players.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Name	Start	End	Gap	Total Slams	Avg Slams per years won	Multislam years
Connors	1974	1983	10	8	0.8	1
Borg	1974	1981	8	11	1.375	3
McEnroe	1979	1984	6	7	1.166666667	2
Wilander	1982	1988	7	7	1	1
Lendl	1984	1990	7	8	1.142857143	2
Becker	1985	1996	12	6	0.5	1
Edberg	1985	1992	8	6	0.75	0
Sampras	1990	2002	13	14	1.076923077	4
Courier	1991	1993	3	4	1.333333333	1
Agassi	1992	2003	12	8	0.6666666667	1
Federer	2003	2018	16	20	1.25	6
Nadal	2005	2022	18	22	1.222222222	6
Djokovic	2008	2023	16	24	1.5	7
Murray	2012	2016	5	3	0.6	0
Alcaraz	2022	2024	3	4	1.333333333	1
Sinner	2024	2024	1	2	2	1

Sinner is just started. All the players on this list save for Courier had at least 5 years at the top winning grand slams.

Only Andy Murray and Stefan Edberg did not have multi slam year.
Connors in 74
Borg in 78, 79, 80
McEnroe in 81 and 84
Wilander in 88
Lendl in 86, 87
Becker in 89
Courier in 92
Sampras in 93,94,95,97
Agassi in 99
Federer in 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 17
Nadal in 08, 10, 13, 17, 19, 22
Djokovic in 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 , 21, 23
Alcaraz in 24
Sinner in 24


Let's leave Roddick behind now and look forward to far better players already. Sinner did what Murray and Edberg never could already.

 

[helterskelter]

Name	Start	End	Gap	Total Slams	Avg Slams per years won	Multislam years
Connors	1974	1983	10	8	0.8	1
Borg	1974	1981	8	11	1.375	3
McEnroe	1979	1984	6	7	1.166666667	2
Wilander	1982	1988	7	7	1	1
Lendl	1984	1990	7	8	1.142857143	2
Becker	1985	1996	12	6	0.5	1
Edberg	1985	1992	8	6	0.75	0
Sampras	1990	2002	13	14	1.076923077	4
Courier	1991	1993	3	4	1.333333333	1
Agassi	1992	2003	12	8	0.6666666667	1
Federer	2003	2018	16	20	1.25	6
Nadal	2005	2022	18	22	1.222222222	6
Djokovic	2008	2023	16	24	1.5	7
Murray	2012	2016	5	3	0.6	0
Alcaraz	2022	2024	3	4	1.333333333	1
Sinner	2024	2024	1	2	2	1

Sinner is just started. All the players on this list save for Courier had at least 5 years at the top winning grand slams.

Only Andy Murray and Stefan Edberg did not have multi slam year.
Connors in 74
Borg in 78, 79, 80
McEnroe in 81 and 84
Wilander in 88
Lendl in 86, 87
Becker in 89
Courier in 92
Sampras in 93,94,95,97
Agassi in 99
Federer in 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 17
Nadal in 08, 10, 13, 17, 19, 22
Djokovic in 11, 15, 16, 18, 19 , 21, 23
Alcaraz in 24
Sinner in 24


Let's leave Roddick behind now and look forward to far better players already. Sinner did what Murray and Edberg never could already.

Murray did win slams within 12 months of each other, at least: US Open 2012 and Wimbledon 2013.

Edberg defended two slams: US Open 91 and 92 and Australian Open December 85 and January 87, so he too twice won slams that were barely a year apart.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray did win slams within 12 months of each other, at least: US Open 2012 and Wimbledon 2013.

Edberg defended two slams: US Open 91 and 92 and Australian Open December 85 and January 87, so he too twice won slams that were barely a year apart.

Yes.

 

[Pheasant]

Winning a slam a year apart is different than winning two slams in the same calendary for a couple of reasons:

1. 2 slams a year apart like Edberg 1991 USO and 1992 USO gives him 5 opportunities to win 2. A calendar year only gives a person 4 opportunities.
2. Pulling off a 2-pack in a calendar year gives you only one starting point, as opposed to having 4 starting points using the 12-month span criteria.

 

[duaneeo]

Whether or not Sinner has already surpassed Roddick is debatable, but it's without question he will eventually.

But Roddick was only 21 when he won a slam, was YE#1, and had 13 weeks at #1. Afterwards, he had a peak Federer in his path.

 

[NatF]

Agree. But I’m addressing a different point.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that Roddick would have done better without Federer around. But that tells us nothing about how the general competition in his era, excluding Federer (ie the competition Federer faced), fares relative to today’s players.

We both think it's possible make an educated comparison of games and playing level, the difference is you will only concede it in very obvious cases where as I'll lean into less obvious comparisons. Don't think there's much more to say.

 

[GabeT]

We both think it's possible make an educated comparison of games and playing level, the difference is you will only concede it in very obvious cases where as I'll lean into less obvious comparisons. Don't think there's much more to say.

I think you’re dancing a bit around the key point I was trying to make. Sure, we can make educated guesses. But we know there is no way to prove any of this. And we can see no one has any predictive ability on real matches. So when (as is the case here) a small group of mostly Fed fans constantly brings up comparisons that make Fed look better and Novak look worse, it’s hard to describe that as anything but trolling.

 

[NatF]

I think you’re dancing a bit around the key point I was trying to make. Sure, we can make educated guesses. But we know there is no way to prove any of this. And we can see no one has any predictive ability on real matches. So when (as is the case here) a small group of mostly Fed fans constantly brings up comparisons that make Fed look better and Novak look worse, it’s hard to describe that as anything but trolling.

False. Plenty do. There's a difference between evaluating level of play in matches already completed and then guessing whether someone will perform in a match that's not happened yet as well. Like I said, obviously there will be variance but I think judging relative levels is certainly doable. As far as making comparisons to make Fed look better etc...for me it's pretty much a fact that the last several years have sucked competition wise, if you think that's trolling then I just think you're in denial I was calling the era weak back in 2018 after Fed had just won his 20th slam so it has nothing to do with just making Djokovic look worse. I coined the term Career Inflation Era while Djokovic was in the middle of his 18-month slump.

 

[GabeT]

False. Plenty do.

Plenty have the ability to predict real matches (and I’m not talking about predicting whether Alcaraz will lose the first round of Wimbledon)? Of course they don’t. If they did they’d be millionaires.

There's a difference between evaluating level of play in matches already completed and then guessing whether someone will perform in a match that's not happened yet as well.

You (and others) keep bringing this up. Yet it makes no sense. I can compare the outcome of, say, Federer in 2006 vs Novak in 2011. We can look at the numbers of who played better against their competition. But that tells us nothing about how they would play if they met each other (or more broadly if they had to play not just each other but the competition the other faced). and that’s the crux of the matter.

Like I said, obviously there will be variance but I think judging relative levels is certainly doable.

It’s certainly “doable” in the sense that no one will stop you. It’s not “doable” in the sense that you can’t prove anything one way or the other and, going back to my prior point, we know no one here can predict real matches.

As far as making comparisons to make Fed look better etc...for me it's pretty much a fact that the last several years have sucked competition wise, if you think that's trolling then I just think you're in denial I was calling the era weak back in 2018 after Fed had just won his 20th slam so it has nothing to do with just making Djokovic look worse. I coined the term Career Inflation Era while Djokovic was in the middle of his 18-month slump.

You are entitled to your opinion. Not debating that.

I’m just pointing that we a a group of posters, mainly Fed fans, who have no ability to predict real matches yet they pretend they can predict time travel tennis.

let’s be clear what you need to be able to predict to have any hope of claiming you can identify a CIE. You’d need to be able to predict how Federer and Djokovic would perform if their birthdates were switched, for example. If you knew for a fact that if their ages were switched that would lead to, say, Fed winning the slam race then you could talk of CIE. There are other possible scenarios of course.

And the reality is that neither you nor any of the other posters have this ability.

 

[jackson vile]

i love the retcon of Roddick somehow being an atg on this forum when it helps poeple's narrative.

Amazing how that works

 

[NatF]

Plenty have the ability to predict real matches (and I’m not talking about predicting whether Alcaraz will lose the first round of Wimbledon)? Of course they don’t. If they did they’d be millionaires.




You (and others) keep bringing this up. Yet it makes no sense. I can compare the outcome of, say, Federer in 2006 vs Novak in 2011. We can look at the numbers of who played better against their competition. But that tells us nothing about how they would play if they met each other (or more broadly if they had to play not just each other but the competition the other faced). and that’s the crux of the matter.



It’s certainly “doable” in the sense that no one will stop you. It’s not “doable” in the sense that you can’t prove anything one way or the other and, going back to my prior point, we know no one here can predict real matches.


You are entitled to your opinion. Not debating that.

I’m just pointing that we a a group of posters, mainly Fed fans, who have no ability to predict real matches yet they pretend they can predict time travel tennis.

let’s be clear what you need to be able to predict to have any hope of claiming you can identify a CIE. You’d need to be able to predict how Federer and Djokovic would perform if their birthdates were switched, for example. If you knew for a fact that if their ages were switched that would lead to, say, Fed winning the slam race then you could talk of CIE. There are other possible scenarios of course.

And the reality is that neither you nor any of the other posters have this ability.

I'm done replying to your non-sequitors lol. Your point about no one being able to predict matches because people aren't making millions is just so asinine. Obviously the bookies get it right more often than not otherwise they'd go out of business

 

[Pheasant]

I think that the confusion comes from the fact that Roddick had about a handful of tourneys during his career where he played like a stone-cold killer. The problem is that he was way too inconsistent. For example, I think that Roddick's 2003 USO stacks up very well to most of Fed's USO title runs. Only 2004 and 2006 were better for Fed's USO streaks. Similarly, he played lights-out on grass courts in 2004, probably eclipsing all but Fed's runs from 2003-2006. But other than that, except maybe his 2007 USO run, he wasn't great. I.e, in a best-case scenario and in the right era, Roddick maybe bags 3 slam titles. So we get 3 hypothetical titles for Roddick's career vs Sinner's 2 actual slam titles in a calendar year.

Safin had 2 epic slam runs. They were epic runs where he could have beaten anybody. I watched Sampras during his interview after that 2000 USO. He was truly stunned. This wasn't a case of where he said he played badly. He was STUNNED. He said how he threw everything but the kitchen sink at Safin for serves, yet they kept coming back at him with interest. I had never seen Sampras with that puzzled of a look. Sampras was serving well that match. But he got curb-stomped. I honestly lost hope for Sampras after that beatdown. But thankfully, Safin often put up complete duds in many slam tourneys, including losing to low-ranked players early.

But.....nobody is saying Safin is an ATG; not even close. He's a cool story. But I'd rank Andy Murray ahead of him for his career.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think that the confusion comes from the fact that Roddick had about a handful of tourneys during his career where he played like a stone-cold killer. The problem is that he was way too inconsistent. For example, I think that Roddick's 2003 USO stacks up very well to most of Fed's USO title runs. Only 2004 and 2006 were better for Fed's USO streaks. Similarly, he played lights-out on grass courts in 2004, probably eclipsing all but Fed's runs from 2003-2006. But other than that, except maybe his 2007 USO run, he wasn't great. I.e, in a best-case scenario and in the right era, Roddick maybe bags 3 slam titles. So we get 3 hypothetical titles for Roddick's career vs Sinner's 2 actual slam titles in a calendar year.

Safin had 2 epic slam runs. They were epic runs where he could have beaten anybody. I watched Sampras during his interview after that 2000 USO. He was truly stunned. This wasn't a case of where he said he played badly. He was STUNNED. He said how he threw everything but the kitchen sink at Safin for serves, yet they kept coming back at him with interest. I had never seen Sampras with that puzzled of a look. Sampras was serving well that match. But he got curb-stomped. I honestly lost hope for Sampras after that beatdown. But thankfully, Safin often put up complete duds in many slam tourneys, including losing to low-ranked players early.

But.....nobody is saying Safin is an ATG; not even close. He's a cool story. But I'd rank Andy Murray ahead of him for his career.

In 2 years (2026 end) Sinner would be at 4 slams and I am underselling that

He would have 100 weeks at number 1. And an atp finals + 7/8 masters.

There is also very very good chance he can even do a career grand slam but I will wait for that.

 

[CHillTennis]

As of this week, Sinner has officially passed Andy Roddick in the number of weeks at No.1 and slam count, Sinner has 14 weeks at No.1 and Rod 13 weeks.

Has Sinner At only 23 years old surpassed Roddick in both greatness and playing level Despite not having to play Prime Federer?

 

[Razer]

Winning a slam a year apart is different than winning two slams in the same calendary for a couple of reasons:

1. 2 slams a year apart like Edberg 1991 USO and 1992 USO gives him 5 opportunities to win 2. A calendar year only gives a person 4 opportunities.
2. Pulling off a 2-pack in a calendar year gives you only one starting point, as opposed to having 4 starting points using the 12-month span criteria.

That's just mental gymnastics from you.

Winning 2 slams 1 year apart could said to be even harder than winning 2 together because in 12 months time you are only older, to maintain form 12 months later against field which is younger could be said to be tougher.

Nadal won 14 french open over a span of 17 years while someone like Federer won 14 slams (8 wimbledons + 6 aus open) from 2003 june till 2018 january which is 14.5 years. Whats tougher ? The obvious answer is winning a slam year after year is tougher than just collection slams together.

CYGS is a fraud term coined by the media and the former players, I don't take it seriously at all.

 

[ND-13]

Plenty have the ability to predict real matches (and I’m not talking about predicting whether Alcaraz will lose the first round of Wimbledon)? Of course they don’t. If they did they’d be millionaires.




You (and others) keep bringing this up. Yet it makes no sense. I can compare the outcome of, say, Federer in 2006 vs Novak in 2011. We can look at the numbers of who played better against their competition. But that tells us nothing about how they would play if they met each other (or more broadly if they had to play not just each other but the competition the other faced). and that’s the crux of the matter.



It’s certainly “doable” in the sense that no one will stop you. It’s not “doable” in the sense that you can’t prove anything one way or the other and, going back to my prior point, we know no one here can predict real matches.


You are entitled to your opinion. Not debating that.

I’m just pointing that we a a group of posters, mainly Fed fans, who have no ability to predict real matches yet they pretend they can predict time travel tennis.

let’s be clear what you need to be able to predict to have any hope of claiming you can identify a CIE. You’d need to be able to predict how Federer and Djokovic would perform if their birthdates were switched, for example. If you knew for a fact that if their ages were switched that would lead to, say, Fed winning the slam race then you could talk of CIE. There are other possible scenarios of course.

And the reality is that neither you nor any of the other posters have this ability.

I think there is an inherent bias that you are projecting because you are seeing many Fed fans talk about time travel tennis.

In few years, you are going to see many here claim Alcaraz and Sinner have a level beyond what big 3 showed because of recency bias and you will be doing the same time travel tennis.

We are all biased seeing the numbers achieved by each player. We all know that great players sometimes achieve far less because of tough draws, untimely injury , tremendous competition . Someone with great skill like Delpo may end up with just 1 major while someone with same or slightly lesser talent can easily get to 3-5 majors. If we remove our bias towards numbers, faces and eras, we can try and be objective. To say that all those predictions are worthless is just a narrow way to view and analyze tennis.

 

[CHillTennis]

I think that the confusion comes from the fact that Roddick had about a handful of tourneys during his career where he played like a stone-cold killer. The problem is that he was way too inconsistent. For example, I think that Roddick's 2003 USO stacks up very well to most of Fed's USO title runs. Only 2004 and 2006 were better for Fed's USO streaks. Similarly, he played lights-out on grass courts in 2004, probably eclipsing all but Fed's runs from 2003-2006. But other than that, except maybe his 2007 USO run, he wasn't great. I.e, in a best-case scenario and in the right era, Roddick maybe bags 3 slam titles. So we get 3 hypothetical titles for Roddick's career vs Sinner's 2 actual slam titles in a calendar year.

Safin had 2 epic slam runs. They were epic runs where he could have beaten anybody. I watched Sampras during his interview after that 2000 USO. He was truly stunned. This wasn't a case of where he said he played badly. He was STUNNED. He said how he threw everything but the kitchen sink at Safin for serves, yet they kept coming back at him with interest. I had never seen Sampras with that puzzled of a look. Sampras was serving well that match. But he got curb-stomped. I honestly lost hope for Sampras after that beatdown. But thankfully, Safin often put up complete duds in many slam tourneys, including losing to low-ranked players early.

But.....nobody is saying Safin is an ATG; not even close. He's a cool story. But I'd rank Andy Murray ahead of him for his career.

In 2007, Federer beat Roddick in the quarters and Djokovic in the finals. In 2008 Federer beat Djokovic in the semifinals and Murray in the finals.

At the 2003 US Open, Roddick beat Nalbandian in the semis and a very tired Ferrero in the finals.

How does that even compare to Federer's draw?

Also, what is an "epic run?"

 

[GabeT]

I think there is an inherent bias that you are projecting because you are seeing many Fed fans talk about time travel tennis.

In few years, you are going to see many here claim Alcaraz and Sinner have a level beyond what big 3 showed because of recency bias and you will be doing the same time travel tennis.

We are all biased seeing the numbers achieved by each player. We all know that great players sometimes achieve far less because of tough draws, untimely injury , tremendous competition . Someone with great skill like Delpo may end up with just 1 major while someone with same or slightly lesser talent can easily get to 3-5 majors. If we remove our bias towards numbers, faces and eras, we can try and be objective. To say that all those predictions are worthless is just a narrow way to view and analyze tennis.

You make some good points. And sure, the time may come when I’m posting “back in the old days Novak had it hard, not like kids these days” type of comments.

I just don’t like what I see as a trolling approach just to diminish what Novak has accomplished by talking of a career inflation era (a weak era which seemingly only he can take advantage of)

 

[Third Serve]

Gabe again with the non sequiturs. Level comparisons between players are taken seriously in just about every sport out there and it has dominated tennis analysis at least since the 50’s and 60’s. Stats complement this form of analysis, they don’t dethrone it.

 

[ND-13]

You make some good points. And sure, the time may come when I’m posting “back in the old days Novak had it hard, not like kids these days” type of comments.

I just don’t like what I see as a trolling approach just to diminish what Novak has accomplished by talking of a career inflation era (a weak era which seemingly only he can take advantage of)

Fair enough. It is natural to be defensive. Djokovic won several majors in extremely strong era , so IMO he does not need any defending and his results speak for themselves

 

[NeutralFan]

Berdych was better looking too

Far better looking lol

 

[NeutralFan]

If Jim Courier was born in 1981 instead of 1970 then he would still be on 4 Slams @NeutralFan

He wins

2002 French Open
2003 Aus Open
2003 French Open
2004 French Open

This is how his resume would look like, he was also not far better than Murray. GAS does not help him at all because he cannot take on Federer on Grass and on HCs will have Safin and Federer both to deal with even if he takes out Hewitt and Roddick. That leaves only Clay where he was dominant but for how long? His time would only exist until Bull inevitably arrives in 2005.

Am I right ???? @NonP @BorgTheGOAT @RS @Hitman

Meh , transporting him doesn't make any sense at all since he was born to play in 90s , also he won one slam more in a far more competitive era , in an era where surfaces didn't play similar and was quite competitive on all surfaces. Comparing Courier with Murray is a total joke.

 

[nolefam_2024]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833532384102461762

 

[GabeT]

I'm done replying to your non-sequitors lol. Your point about no one being able to predict matches because people aren't making millions is just so asinine. Obviously the bookies get it right more often than not otherwise they'd go out of business

First of all bookies don’t predict results, they adjust the odds to reflect what people are betting on. So no, a bookie has no specific knowledge or model of tennis nor do they need one. Just like they don’t need an election model for political betting.

As for the rest I think it would be useful to dedicate a thread that really delves into the topics we discuss here. I notice that @Third Serve is also claiming that “level comparisons are taken seriously”. How about we first agree what that even means?

When we talk of comparing levels there are, no pun intended, many levels to the discussion.

Start at the simplest, comparing the level of two players based on a single event and then predicting who would win. This is a common debate here. Say, 2011 Novak vs 2006 Fed at the USO. Many here think they can reach a conclusion on who played better and then, using that “model”, predict who would win in a time travel tennis match. But this is nonsense. However Fed played in the 06USO final tells us nothing about how he would play against a completely different player.

Then you have the next level, call it the @RS level. Not just comparing one match be another but a series (best of 10). This now requires an extra step of coming up with an assessment of the average level of a player and predict results against the average level of another player at another point in time. Obviously impossible.

And we haven’t been reached the CIE debates yet.

 

[KingCarlitos]

This thread evolved exactly how I intended and foresaw.

 

[InsideOut900]

I don’t think that’s the debate, is it? I think the issue with Med is more on HC.

But I’m addressing a broader point. Claims that Roddrick would, in general, dominate this era (one thread mentioned him winning 15 slams as I recall), or at least win much more than current active players, are generally proposed by posters that want to improve Roddick’s standing as a way of improving Fed’s competition.

Not really that we would dominate, he was too inconsistent for that, but rather peak like Wawrinka and claim his share of Slams.

That's because he had some fundamental big weapons in his serve + FH that far outdo anyone with a balanced game like Sinner, who is more built on all around game and consistency as it has been proven time and time again in the past eras.

False. Plenty do. There's a difference between evaluating level of play in matches already completed and then guessing whether someone will perform in a match that's not happened yet as well. Like I said, obviously there will be variance but I think judging relative levels is certainly doable. As far as making comparisons to make Fed look better etc...for me it's pretty much a fact that the last several years have sucked competition wise, if you think that's trolling then I just think you're in denial I was calling the era weak back in 2018 after Fed had just won his 20th slam so it has nothing to do with just making Djokovic look worse. I coined the term Career Inflation Era while Djokovic was in the middle of his 18-month slump.

It's particularly easy when players also used the same equipment and played in the same conditions more or less.

Fed, who was already starting to peak in 2003, still had enough oomph to win Slams as late as 2019, when Djokodal and Next Gen were very much around. Should be pretty obvious that peak Federer was insanely good and anyone who challanged him had to play at a great level if he was still so hard to put down by the younger gens in his mid 30s.

And ditto for Djokodal, who won all but 3 Slams (USO 20-22) from FO 18 to USO 23.

That's why all those guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga were damn good in their days.

 

[NeutralFan]

This thread evolved exactly how I intended and foresaw.

You're learning fast, son!! My threads also get response I want

 

[NatF]

Not really that we would dominate, he was too inconsistent for that, but rather peak like Wawrinka and claim his share of Slams.

That's because he had some fundamental big weapons in his serve + FH that far outdo anyone with a balanced game like Sinner, who is more built on all around game and consistency as it has been proven time and time again in the past eras.

It's particularly easy when players also used the same equipment and played in the same conditions more or less.

Fed, who was already starting to peak in 2003, still had enough oomph to win Slams as late as 2019, when Djokodal and Next Gen were very much around. Should be pretty obvious that peak Federer was insanely good and anyone who challanged him had to play at a great level if he was still so hard to put down by the younger gens in his mid 30s.

And ditto for Djokodal, who won all but 3 Slams (USO 20-22) from FO 18 to USO 23.

That's why all those guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Safin, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga were damn good in their days.

It's funny how guys with high floors and low ceilings are getting confused for having great peaks just because they show up over and over to collect dinner plates from mid-30's Big 3...

 

[zagor]

He could have added a slam or 2 more but 15 slams pushes it way to far that must be trolling.

Roddick is 1-4 slam winning player, at best he can equal Courier, he's just not as good as Becker or Edberg. I've never seen anyone say 15 slams either, that's just an asinine hyperbole (if anyone said that, they were clearly trolling).

His game is also not built up for longevity, the way he was serving that shoulder was always gonna give up sooner or later, he's like Thiem in that regard (limited shelf life).

He's Med level of player overall IMO, I always liked that comparison. They both have some undeniably great strengths but also some very clear weaknesses.

 

[NeutralFan]

I don’t think that’s the debate, is it? I think the issue with Med is more on HC.

But I’m addressing a broader point. Claims that Roddrick would, in general, dominate this era (one thread mentioned him winning 15 slams as I recall), or at least win much more than current active players, are generally proposed by posters that want to improve Roddick’s standing as a way of improving Fed’s competition.

Lmao

 

[zagor]

What a rudimentary understanding of tennis you have, Sinner's serve doesn't have the lefty slice that Nadal's has to draw weak replies and open up the court.

Don't think he has Nadal's speed, footwork and FH to punish weak replies as consistently well as Nadal.

Nadal's serve+1 is really amazing. I remember Novak once saying Nadal has the best 1-2 punch.

You have to get the serve back deep otherwise Nadal will kill it, and it's hard to return that lefty slice consistently deep. In some ways Novak was the best at it, which was a foundation of his success against him. Fed was able to do it in 2017 with the bigger racquet which was the crucial change in their rivalry dynamics IMO, coming over his BH on the return and getting it back deep.

 

[NeutralFan]

Its much better serve than Nadal and quickly becoming better than Djokovic's serve.
He has the ground game just like them. He has full package.

The biggest leaking of errors is going to come from backhand of Federer which sinner would keep attacking.

Intresting.

 

[nolefam_2024]

This thread evolved exactly how I intended and foresaw.

So

Then is this kind of a baiting thread

And if so what does that say about YOU

 

[RS]

ao: roddick 10 golden matches
rg: roddick 10 golden matches
wb: roddick 10 golden matches
uso: roddick 10 golden matches

I can't register this.

 

[EdMcMush]

Amazing how that works

before that he was overrated and only rated this high cause he was the last actually slam contending American man (in singles that is, the Bryan bros, Sock, Ram among others had great doubles careers)

 

[SneederFeeder]

Next Slam Sinner wins will we get a "Has Sinner surpassed Nishikori?" Thread?

Patiently waiting now

 

[travlerajm]

I'll wait. I think Roddick was top-10 for about a decade. Let's see how the fragile looking Sinner holds up.

Sinner looks more muscular and less fragile recently.