Sometimes , I really wonder

[Raining hopes]

How many people here actually watch tennis without biasness ? Sorry How many people actually watch tennis?No I am not on a higher ground but still. Sometimes the lack of applied tennis logic is baffling and disappointing

Just because someone's name is "Roddick" and he relatively couldn't do more at a tournament ,people are so quick to dismiss any praise bestowed upon him.

Are big 3 the only people capable playing high level tennis ?
Can't a regular top 10er achieve decent level of play to even trouble the big 3 ? Do we let our bias cloud us so much that we don't even see how players like Verdasco, Nalabandian, Anderson,P.H Mathieu,Berdych,Rosol,Soldering,Stak and others have troubled and defeated the big 3 even when playing well ?



Cmon, Nobody talks about how someone hitting with avg FH speed in higher 80s , painting the lines with a serve that big will be a problem to a big 3 member on FREAKING GRASS.



In reality, the most successful grass courter in history and with allegedly greatest FH ever was put on defensive for two sets and flat out outplayed for 1 set and a half and had to be saved by rain.



But since his name is "Roddick" , he is a freaking joke and won't win games against someone else. Whatever little he won, he won by playing with a baseball bat.


I voted for Novak , but cmon no freaking respect to "Roddick" ? The same Novak lost 1 set and played a tight match with Tomic,Baghdatis,Dimitrov at the same venue and went down 2 sets to love against Anderson in his best year.

But of course he won't lose games to "Roddick"

 

[Tennisgods]

I think the big 3 (for a while they were indeed a 4) being so far ahead of the rest of the field does cause a bit of a problem. Even if it’s because we have 3 ATG’s rather than everyone else being crap, everyone else certainly appears quite crap in comparison.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Fedr.

More seriously, unbiased analysis is rarely compatible with regular posting, certainly not the bashful type.

I think Djokovic still wins peak for peak, but 2014 was clearly not peak Grassovic while 2004 was peak Grassdick, so ARod could win.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Raining dude, keep heading in this direction and you will find yourself Roddicked in the middle of nowhere.

I'm a clown. I like to joke and the Roddicked in the middle of nowhere is funny to me. That's all. I know they are world-class operators.

 

[Raining hopes]

Fedr.

More seriously, unbiased analysis is rarely compatible with regular posting, certainly not the bashful type.

I think Djokovic still wins peak for peak, but 2014 was clearly not peak Grassovic while 2004 was peak Grassdick, so ARod could win.

Nah I am not going for unbiased analysis, but acceptance that players of recent past and non big 3 players didn't play tennis with sticks.


Djokovic 2014 would end up beating Roddick 2004, but it won't be easy.

 

[Raining hopes]

Raining dude, keep heading in this direction and you will find yourself Roddicked in the middle of nowhere.

I'm a clown. I like to joke and the Roddicked in the middle of nowhere is funny to me. That's all. I know they are world-class operators.

I have a temper Poisoned dude, and sometimes that temper really boils over to keyboard like lava.

Excuse me , I just need to get a new keyboard because this one has melted . I got Roddicked out of nowhere in the other thread, just like HHH got RKOed outta nowhere (Michael Cole voice) in the super showdown brother !

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Well you see I’m of the opinion that Federer’s peak was not in 2004 but really that his best level was from 2009-20017.

The game got better and so Roddick of 2004 would find himself really out of his depth against Novak of 2014.

Massive credit to Federer really that he persevered when so many champs of the past retired early.

 

[Grampa]

Well you see I’m of the opinion that Federer’s peak was not in 2004 but really that his best level was from 2009-20017.

The game got better and so Roddick of 2004 would find himself really out of his depth against Novak of 2014.

Massive credit to Federer really that he persevered when so many champs of the past retired early.

So an evolution in the game from 2004 to 2009 yet for the past decade it's been stagnant? Whatever makes sense to you.

 

[Red Rick]

Well you see I’m of the opinion that Federer’s peak was not in 2004 but really that his best level was from 2009-20017.

The game got better and so Roddick of 2004 would find himself really out of his depth against Novak of 2014.

Massive credit to Federer really that he persevered when so many champs of the past retired early.

You think Fedal 2009 was the same level as in 2017?

Or was Fed even better cause he won in 2017?

 

[metsman]

Fedr.

More seriously, unbiased analysis is rarely compatible with regular posting, certainly not the bashful type.

I think Djokovic still wins peak for peak, but 2014 was clearly not peak Grassovic while 2004 was peak Grassdick, so ARod could win.

Does Djokovic only have 1 peak year on grass then(and we can all agree that peak level is not at a GOAT level)? Not a good look for a 4 time Wimbledon winner no?

 

[James695]

How many people here actually watch tennis without biasness ? Sorry How many people actually watch tennis?No I am not on a higher ground but still. Sometimes the lack of applied tennis logic is baffling and disappointing

Just because someone's name is "Roddick" and he relatively couldn't do more at a tournament ,people are so quick to dismiss any praise bestowed upon him.

Are big 3 the only people capable playing high level tennis ?
Can't a regular top 10er achieve decent level of play to even trouble the big 3 ? Do we let our bias cloud us so much that we don't even see how players like Verdasco, Nalabandian, Anderson,P.H Mathieu,Berdych,Rosol,Soldering,Stak and others have troubled and defeated the big 3 even when playing well ?



Cmon, Nobody talks about how someone hitting with avg FH speed in higher 80s , painting the lines with a serve that big will be a problem to a big 3 member on FREAKING GRASS.



In reality, the most successful grass courter in history and with allegedly greatest FH ever was put on defensive for two sets and flat out outplayed for 1 set and a half and had to be saved by rain.



But since his name is "Roddick" , he is a freaking joke and won't win games against someone else. Whatever little he won, he won by playing with a baseball bat.


I voted for Novak , but cmon no freaking respect to "Roddick" ? The same Novak lost 1 set and played a tight match with Tomic,Baghdatis,Dimitrov at the same venue and went down 2 sets to love against Anderson in his best year.

But of course he won't lose games to "Roddick"

Roddick was the first player I supported that wasn’t British. I think he played great tennis, particularly around 2002-2004. He was always fun to watch and one of the best personalities in the game...period! I would kill to have a young player like him coming through now that I could get behind.

The disrespect he gets on these forums I find ridiculous.

 

[ScottleeSV]

Roddick did get a slam so let's not get too many violins out, but yeah, he was better than his legacy would have you believe. Should have won at least 1 of those Wimbledon finals against Fed. He was also very unlucky with the generation he had to deal with, unfortunately. And also, the courts slowing down in the mid noughties hindered his game greatly.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Does Djokovic only have 1 peak year on grass then(and we can all agree that peak level is not at a GOAT level)? Not a good look for a 4 time Wimbledon winner no?

Yes, 2015 is his only peak grass performance. Perhaps it doesn't look great that Djokovic has more Wimbledons than Becker and JMac, both obviously better grasscourters... oh well. He's rather like Connors, not a natural but found ways to be good but better grasscourters should deal with him. Jimbo did have 2 wins, 5 total finals and a bunch of semis. How many peak years did Connors have on grass btw, only 1974 I guess, hmm.

 

[Luka888]

AR was good until 2004. His serve was great and his FH was lethal. I said this before and I will say it again. I'm not sure how that great FH kinda disappeared. He was solid after 2004 but just solid. I, personally, found him to be one dimensional. It was all about the serve. He was solid on the net. So, no disrespect for Roddick just stating some facts.

Then Fed happened. AR was pretty much useless on clay like most of Americans players, meaning players from the US. Even if he had won that final against Fed, I'm not so sure that would have change his 'legacy'. I felt bad for him. He tried.

The expectations were so high back in 2003/04 but AR didn't deliver. Sorry, but I had to be brutally honest. Well his press conferences were always so funny .

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[Deleted member 733170]

You think Fedal 2009 was the same level as in 2017?

Or was Fed even better cause he won in 2017?

Yes, I’m of the opinion that they were playing better tennis in 2017 than 2009.

Though it quite an unpopular opinion here I defer to Federer on this.

 

[Red Rick]

Yes, I’m of the opinion that they were playing better tennis in 2017 than 2009.

Though it quite an unpopular opinion here I defer to Federer on this.

Why would Fed admit hes not as great as he used to be?

 

[NoleFam]

2004 Roddick was actually a beast. That was before he developed a complex of playing Federer and he showed no fear. I think he came back out after the delay a little tight after realizing what he was in the cusp of achieving and Federer came back out much more relaxed and with much more purpose. This was best version of Roddick at Wimbledon in my opinion.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, I’m of the opinion that they were playing better tennis in 2017 than 2009.

Though it quite an unpopular opinion here I defer to Federer on this.

Not in Australia, clearly. RG, yes for Nadal and debatable for Federer at Wimbledon.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I wonder if people commenting actually have played tennis instead of just talk about it. I did a poll on it a while back and I was surprised how many had never played and still comment on things as much as they do.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, 2015 is his only peak grass performance. Perhaps it doesn't look great that Djokovic has more Wimbledons than Becker and JMac, both obviously better grasscourters... oh well. He's rather like Connors, not a natural but found ways to be good but better grasscourters should deal with him. Jimbo did have 2 wins, 5 total finals and a bunch of semis. How many peak years did Connors have on grass btw, only 1974 I guess, hmm.

Becker and JMac are better grasscourters of their era in their own type of conditions. They would probably best Djokovic in that environment. In this era, if they took on Djokovic in that high bouncing grass, they would get dealt with savagely. The only ones who can really knock Djokovic off his perch on that grass are Federer and Sampras in great serving performances and taking the center away from him by rushing Djokovic. It's not even a guarantee that that would be consistently successful. Djokovic in his own conditions of his era on grass is very underrated. This is a baseline era and he is one of the best at it with a lethal serve/return combo.

 

[Red Rick]

Not in Australia, clearly. RG, yes for Nadal and debatable for Federer at Wimbledon.

2017 USO Anderson >>>> 2009 USO Federer smh obviously ROFLMAO

 

[Red Rick]

I wonder if people commenting actually have played tennis instead of just talk about it. I did a poll on it a while back and I was surprised how many had never played and still comment on things as much as they do.

I have and I wonder why it matters so much

 

[NoleFam]

2017 USO Anderson >>>> 2009 USO Federer smh obviously ROFLMAO

 

[RS]

Becker and JMac are better grasscourters of their era in their own type of conditions. They would probably best Djokovic in that environment. In this era, if they took on Djokovic in that high bouncing grass, they would get dealt with savagely. The only ones who can really knock Djokovic off his perch on that grass are Federer and Sampras in great serving performances and taking the center away from him by rushing Djokovic. It's not even a guarantee that that would be consistently successful. Djokovic in his own conditions of his era on grass is very underrated. This is a baseline era and he is one of the best at it with a lethal serve/return combo.

What about 2007/2008 Wimbledon final Nadal on Grass vs Novak? That would be a very tough matchup.

 

[icedevil0289]

tennis really is, despite being a global sport, a niche sport in some ways because only would tennis fans care so much whether a fan plays tennis or not when being a fan and commenting on the sport. i have friends who are sports fans and i dont recall anyone ever asking oh well do you play basketball or football when talking about those respective sports but apparently with tennis, its such a weird thing. i truly dont get it but then this is a sport that craps itself when fans actually behave like sports fans and pretend that they are above in anyway despite the regular controversies.

 

[NatF]

2004 Roddick was actually a beast. That was before he developed a complex of playing Federer and he showed no fear. I think he came back out after the delay a little tight after realizing what he was in the cusp of achieving and Federer came back out much more relaxed and with much more purpose. This was best version of Roddick at Wimbledon in my opinion.

Yeah, the break killed Arod's momentum and Federer shifted his tactics to more netplay and slice IIRC. Guy would have been #1 if he won that match which is something a lot of people don't seem to be aware of, by all accounts it was a huge match for both and definitely not a given.

 

[NoleFam]

What about 2007/2008 Wimbledon final Nadal on Grass vs Novak? That would be a very tough matchup.

I think 2008 Nadal would give the better match because he was more confident. Would definitely go 5 sets and would be a nail biter.

 

[RS]

I think 2008 Nadal would give the better match because he was more confident. Would definitely go 5 sets and would be a nail biter.

Agree.

 

[ChaelAZ]

I have and I wonder why it matters so much

It is always my first thought when I watch people watch sports and listent to them talk, and there are apparent things that they have no real personal reference about. Something as simple as watching the NBA playoffs the other night and there was this guy in the corner that kept saying things like, "Jesus, why didn't he catch up to that guy", or "He should have had that shot." Then you get down to strategical talk of play, or comparison, etc. of tennis...just interesting.

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah, the break killed Arod's momentum and Federer shifted his tactics to more netplay and slice IIRC. Guy would have been #1 if he won that match which is something a lot of people don't seem to be aware of, by all accounts it was a huge match for both and definitely not a given.

If he had won that match, it could have changed how some things played out. Would that win have propelled him to another title, maybe in 2009? How would Federer have responded if he lost? Would the USO been any different? Looking back, that match was mandatory for Roddick to win if he wanted to achieve a bigger legacy.

 

[ChaelAZ]

2017 USO Anderson >>>> 2009 USO Federer smh obviously ROFLMAO

I actually think USO Anderson was brilliant. But I am surely a minority.

 

[RS]

AR was good until 2004. His serve was great and his FH was lethal. I said this before and I will say it again. I'm not sure how that great FH kinda disappeared. He was solid after 2004 but just solid. I, personally, found him to be one dimensional. It was all about the serve. He was solid on the net. So, no disrespect for Roddick just stating some facts.

Then Fed happened. AR was pretty much useless on clay like most of Americans players, meaning players from the US. Even if he had won that final against Fed, I'm not so sure that would have change his 'legacy'. I felt bad for him. He tried.

The expectations were so high back in 2003/04 but AR didn't deliver. Sorry, but I had to be brutally honest. Well his press conferences were always so funny .

Roddick still remained in the top 10 until 2011 I think so he was still a good player. Let’s not forgot he had a great Wimbeldon 2009 as well.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Ok I admit. Roddick is good enough to win some games and avoid bakery products. Dull bots like him tend to do that.

 

[NatF]

If he had won that match, it could have changed how some things played out. Would that win have propelled him to another title, maybe in 2009? How would Federer have responded if he lost? Would the USO been any different? Looking back, that match was mandatory for Roddick to win if he wanted to achieve a bigger legacy.

That USO loss to Johansson is a head scratcher, Arod wins that match 9/10 but somehow he lost despite winning way more points...if he wins Wimbledon then he might enter the USO as the #1 seed and draw Agassi, would be a cracker. I think the worst thing about being a Roddick fan is knowing that he basically regressed after 2004, instead of building on his game he kinda became a guy who played not to lose rallies with conservative hitting. I think his game develops in a totally different way if he won Wimbledon in 2004, I doubt he would have too much longevity due to shoulder problems but he probably carves out a decent looking legacy.

 

[NoleFam]

That USO loss to Johansson is a head scratcher, Arod wins that match 9/10 but somehow he lost despite winning way more points...if he wins Wimbledon then he might enter the USO as the #1 seed and draw Agassi, would be a cracker. I think the worst thing about being a Roddick fan is knowing that he basically regressed after 2004, instead of building on his game he kinda became a guy who played not to lose rallies with conservative hitting. I think his game develops in a totally different way if he won Wimbledon in 2004, I doubt he would have too much longevity due to shoulder problems but he probably carves out a decent looking legacy.

I didn't see the Johansson match so I can't really say if the guy just redlined and beat him or not. I'm in the dark on that one. I know it was disappointing though to lose to a player like that while defending his title. The biggest mistake he ever made though was getting rid of Gilbert. That was his major mistake. Gilbert just got him and pushed his game to where it should have been. After that, he turned into a grinder with a big serve and decent forehand. He even stopped going for it on the forehand like he used to. His peak was 2004 and every year after that just didn't measure up.

 

[metsman]

Yes, 2015 is his only peak grass performance. Perhaps it doesn't look great that Djokovic has more Wimbledons than Becker and JMac, both obviously better grasscourters... oh well. He's rather like Connors, not a natural but found ways to be good but better grasscourters should deal with him. Jimbo did have 2 wins, 5 total finals and a bunch of semis. How many peak years did Connors have on grass btw, only 1974 I guess, hmm.

His serve probably makes him a bit better than Jimmy although Jimmy was much more natural at net and also more natural hitting groundstrokes on grass (relative to era). I rate Nadal's peak on grass slightly over either though. Obviously you can never understate the change in conditions so I may be selling Jimmy short. 2 Wimbledons sounds right for all them. Becker and Mac both should have won at least 1 more.

 

[metsman]

I didn't see the Johansson match so I can't really say if the guy just redlined and beat him or not. I'm in the dark on that one. I know it was disappointing though to lose to a player like that while defending his title. The biggest mistake he ever made though was getting rid of Gilbert. That was his major mistake. Gilbert just got him and pushed his game to where it should have been. After that, he turned into a grinder with a big serve and decent forehand. He even stopped going for it on the forehand like he used to. His peak was 2004 and every year after that just didn't measure up.

Johansson was hitting his serve and FH about as big as anyone I've ever seen, was beating Roddick at his own game, and his BH held up pretty well that day too. That being said, Roddick should definitely have won either the 2nd or the 5th.

Roddick was definitely pissed after that match but I think the panic changes came after Fed destroyed him at Bangkok and Hewitt at TMC. Overreacted to getting beat by those guys badly at events/conditions where they had the edge on top of the matchup edge.

 

[BlueB]

But since his name is "Roddick" , he is a freaking joke and won't win games against someone else.

No, since his name is "Roddick", he's a Dick.

 

[NoleFam]

His serve probably makes him a bit better than Jimmy although Jimmy was much more natural at net and also more natural hitting groundstrokes on grass (relative to era). I rate Nadal's peak on grass slightly over either though. Obviously you can never understate the change in conditions so I may be selling Jimmy short. 2 Wimbledons sounds right for all them. Becker and Mac both should have won at least 1 more.

How can you say 2 sounds about right for Djokovic when he has 4 of them though? Lol. That's double. Sorry man but Connors is a level below Djokovic. Dude could never beat Borg although Mac did. He lost all 4 times to him at Wimbledon. Djokovic beat the beat grass players of his era, minus Murray. I'm sure he wanted another crack at him though but it never happened. Also, can't really say Mac and Beck should have won more if they got beaten by Borg, Connors, Edberg and Sampras. You have to find a way to win. Djokovic did and has 4.

 

[metsman]

How can you say 2 sounds about right for Djokovic when he has 4 of them though? Lol. That's double. Sorry man but Connors is a level below Djokovic. Dude could never beat Borg although Mac did. He lost all 4 times to him at Wimbledon. Djokovic beat the beat grass players of his era, minus Murray. I'm sure he wanted another crack at him though but it never happened. Also, can't really say Mac and Beck should have won more if they got beaten by Borg, Connors, Edberg and Sampras. You have to find a way to win. Djokovic did and has 4.

Yes, what a disgrace to get beaten by PRIME(key word) Borg and Sampras.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, what a disgrace to get beaten by PRIME(key word) Borg and Sampras.

It's not a disgrace at all. It's an honorable defeat. However, to propel your legacy and gain another Wimbledon you have to beat the best. Connors could never beat Borg there. Mac lost to Connors in a match he arguably should have won. The Sampras defeats for Becker were easier to take than the Edberg ones when he was at his peak.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Becker and JMac are better grasscourters of their era in their own type of conditions. They would probably best Djokovic in that environment. In this era, if they took on Djokovic in that high bouncing grass, they would get dealt with savagely. The only ones who can really knock Djokovic off his perch on that grass are Federer and Sampras in great serving performances and taking the center away from him by rushing Djokovic. It's not even a guarantee that that would be consistently successful. Djokovic in his own conditions of his era on grass is very underrated. This is a baseline era and he is one of the best at it with a lethal serve/return combo.

Djoel lacks a dominant Wimbledon run to be argued to deal with any traditional grasscourter savagely in our favourite hypotheticals (lol). Dropped sets to four different players in 2011 and 2014, two sets down to Anderson in 2015 (3 total dropped), narrowly beat Nadal in 2018 (also 4 total sets dropped). He persevered and won a lot, no disputing facts, but clearly his peak isn't up to grassgoat stuff given that.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[davced1]

I didn't see the Johansson match so I can't really say if the guy just redlined and beat him or not. I'm in the dark on that one. I know it was disappointing though to lose to a player like that while defending his title. The biggest mistake he ever made though was getting rid of Gilbert. That was his major mistake. Gilbert just got him and pushed his game to where it should have been. After that, he turned into a grinder with a big serve and decent forehand. He even stopped going for it on the forehand like he used to. His peak was 2004 and every year after that just didn't measure up.

Joachim Johansson was top ten for some time and barring injuries he would have stayed there for a long time.

 

[NoleFam]

Djoel lacks a dominant Wimbledon run to be argued to deal with any traditional grasscourter savagely in our favourite hypotheticals (lol). Dropped sets to four different players in 2011 and 2014, two sets down to Anderson in 2015 (3 total dropped), narrowly beat Nadal in 2018 (also 4 total sets dropped). He persevered and won a lot, no disputing facts, but clearly his peak isn't up to grassgoat stuff given that.

They cannot beat Djokovic with serve and volleying in this era. They would get passed all day long. Saying tradional grass courters is living in the past and maintaining a view that they are better than the newer guys because they mastered the older, lower bouncing grass. Fact is, in this era their tactics would not be nearly as potent. Sampras is a different story because of his GOAT serve, his athleticism, and his ability to play from the back court and control the center with his powerful forehand.

 

[NoleFam]

You never saw any of that.

I saw two of the Sampras/Becker ones live and watched some of the others years later Cletus.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

They cannot beat Djokovic with serve and volleying in this era. They would get passed all day long. Saying tradional grass courters is living in the past and maintaining a view that they are better than the newer guys because they mastered the older, lower bouncing grass. Fact is, in this era their tactics would not be nearly as potent. Sampras is a different story because of his GOAT serve, his athleticism, and his ability to play from the back court and control the center with his powerful forehand.

If Kevin Anderson can lead peak Djokovic 2-0, I'm sure the greats of bygone times would manage to adjust and compete well, to say the least.

 

[NatF]

I didn't see the Johansson match so I can't really say if the guy just redlined and beat him or not. I'm in the dark on that one. I know it was disappointing though to lose to a player like that while defending his title. The biggest mistake he ever made though was getting rid of Gilbert. That was his major mistake. Gilbert just got him and pushed his game to where it should have been. After that, he turned into a grinder with a big serve and decent forehand. He even stopped going for it on the forehand like he used to. His peak was 2004 and every year after that just didn't measure up.

Match is on my channel

JJ was serving and hitting big but Arod definitely shouldn't have lost imo. Agreed about Gilbert, all his best wins after 2004 had him hitting the big but it was rare for him to go for that play against Federer...

 

[Lleytonstation]

They cannot beat Djokovic with serve and volleying in this era. They would get passed all day long. Saying tradional grass courters is living in the past and maintaining a view that they are better than the newer guys because they mastered the older, lower bouncing grass. Fact is, in this era their tactics would not be nearly as potent. Sampras is a different story because of his GOAT serve, his athleticism, and his ability to play from the back court and control the center with his powerful forehand.

Honestly, the way djoker has been serving, I think he will be lights out at wimbledon.