The overrating of Roddick is getting ridiculous

Holmes said:
A one slam wonder who squeaked said slam by the skin of his teeth, and whose potential for ATG status is mere testament of how weak the era he played in was. The comparisons to Hewitt, Wawrinka, Murray, Courier, and now apparently Djokodal at Wimbledon/USO raise concern - for those who make them.

My fellow Fedfans let us move on and accept this reality so we can restore our reputation to the rest of the thinking, breathing tennis world.
Click to expand...
How much did you see him play during his career?
 
What makes Holmes making this thread even more ridiculous is it is he who started the threat what a huge missed opportunity Wimbledon 2010 supposably was for Roddick, something which even Roddick fans laughed at him for, and which was just an indirect way of trying to secretly attack Roddick from a different angle. So he is making a whole post how it is crazy to ever talk about Roddick competing vs Djokovic or Nadal at Wimbledon/US Open, yet is also the same one who starts a thread with the premise how easy it would be for Roddick in one of his worst years to beat Nadal in one of his best years at Wimbledon. Make that make sense everyone. Trolls don't even try anymore.
 
abmk said:
as 2nd part is concerned. so what? doesn't mean Roddick wouldn't hold with as much ease. he has the baseline game to back up his serve
Click to expand...
Because that would strike into Roddick's weakness from the baseline - handling low skidding balls (which would be even worse than those balls that Fed gave him due to very fast and low-bouncing grass) off *both* wings. He also had a more extreme FH grip than *Nadal* with heavy wrist actions. Then, we don't have polystrings here. Expect Roddick to dump loads of balls into the net.

And given the fact that Roddick mostly stayed back on 1st serves in *2001* Wimbledon (when the courts were still fast), I don't think he would have served and volleyed a lot.

insideoutforehands said:
but with Stich making so little impact on Becker's serve in the 93 QF, he would probably manage a break in a set or two with a tiebreak win or two to win in 4 or something at worst.
Click to expand...
First, winning a tiebreak against Stich is a big IF, since Stich won both tiebreaks against Boris IRL.

Second, Becker being able to break Stich does not mean than Roddick could break Stich, since their ROS/return games belonged to different tiers.

Third, note that after Stich won 2 tiebreaks, he actually led Becker 2 to 1 - Becker managed to climb back and win the last 2 sets. Put Roddick in such situation and there is a more 50% probability that he would falter.
 
NedStark said:
Because that would strike into Roddick's weakness from the baseline - handling low skidding balls (which would be even worse than those balls that Fed gave him due to very fast and low-bouncing grass) off *both* wings. He also had a more extreme FH grip than *Nadal* with heavy wrist actions. Then, we don't have polystrings here. Expect Roddick to dump loads of balls into the net.

And given the fact that Roddick mostly stayed back on 1st serves in *2001* Wimbledon (when the courts were still fast), I don't think he would have served and volleyed a lot.
Click to expand...
Roddick didn't have a particular problem with low balls on grass in real life.

Just like he didn't return poorly or float up many easy returns vs Fed in Wim 03 semi. He kept many of the returns low and returned just fine.

Roddick 03 issues from baseline were consistency of topspin/flat BH in longer rallies and at times FH leaking errors (which didn't happen in Wim 03). He would hit more slice BHs anyways in the 90s. Roddick's FH and movement were better than stich 's while stich's bh was better. Roddick has more than enough game after serve to hold comfortably.

also you can't talk about no polystrings and then say Roddick would be the same growing up in the 90s as in the 2000s.
 
Last edited:
insideoutforehands said:
What makes Holmes making this thread even more ridiculous is it is he who started the threat what a huge missed opportunity Wimbledon 2010 supposably was for Roddick, something which even Roddick fans laughed at him for, and which was just an indirect way of trying to secretly attack Roddick from a different angle. So he is making a whole post how it is crazy to ever talk about Roddick competing vs Djokovic or Nadal at Wimbledon/US Open, yet is also the same one who starts a thread with the premise how easy it would be for Roddick in one of his worst years to beat Nadal in one of his best years at Wimbledon. Make that make sense everyone. Trolls don't even try anymore.
Click to expand...
Then it would appear that they don't even need to in order to rile you up.
 
I think Andy had extraordinary skills and talent, who would certainly have been able to achieve much more success if it weren't for this cursed Swiss;
 
DerPflegerDUS said:
I think Andy had extraordinary skills and talent, who would certainly have been able to achieve much more success if it weren't for this cursed Swiss;
Click to expand...
He would have dominated the D1 college circuit for sure. This thread is about the pro Tour though.
 
A lot of the time he is mentioned is by non Federer fans so meh.
 
insideoutforehands said:
What makes Holmes making this thread even more ridiculous is it is he who started the threat what a huge missed opportunity Wimbledon 2010 supposably was for Roddick, something which even Roddick fans laughed at him for, and which was just an indirect way of trying to secretly attack Roddick from a different angle. So he is making a whole post how it is crazy to ever talk about Roddick competing vs Djokovic or Nadal at Wimbledon/US Open, yet is also the same one who starts a thread with the premise how easy it would be for Roddick in one of his worst years to beat Nadal in one of his best years at Wimbledon. Make that make sense everyone. Trolls don't even try anymore.
Click to expand...
He is well aware IMHO
 
Re Wim 1993, funny that nobody notices that there is actually a plausible path for Roddick to final.

If you place him as No.5, same as his real life ranking. His draw would have been Courier and Edberg. Courier was in-form but *never* comfortable in returning big serves, especially hard wide slice serves and especially on grass/carpet, while Edberg was not playing well at all in SF. Had Edberg had a bigger serve he would have survived Courier.
 
NedStark said:
Re Wim 1993, funny that nobody notices that there is actually a plausible path for Roddick to final.

If you place him as No.5, same as his real life ranking. His draw would have been Courier and Edberg. Courier was in-form but *never* comfortable in returning big serves, especially hard wide slice serves and especially on grass/carpet, while Edberg was not playing well at all in SF. Had Edberg had a bigger serve he would have survived Courier.
Click to expand...
If we place Roddick as #5 (taking Ivanisevic's spot), his path to the title after the first two rounds is:

3R: Todd Martin​
4R: David Wheaton​
QF: Jim Courier​
SF: Stefan Edberg​
F: Pete Sampras​

That's a tall task for Roddick to make the final, and, if he makes it there, Sampras is taking him down.
 
buscemi said:
If we place Roddick as #5 (taking Ivanisevic's spot), his path to the title after the first two rounds is:

3R: Todd Martin​
4R: David Wheaton​
QF: Jim Courier​
SF: Stefan Edberg​
F: Pete Sampras​

That's a tall task for Roddick to make the final, and, if he makes it there, Sampras is taking him down.
Click to expand...
I think Roddick in his 2003 form could go through Martin and Wheaton.

As for Courier and Edberg 1993 version, I had already explained - Roddick could rely on his serve against both of them.

If I am Roddick I would prefer facing them over Stich, against whom my serve advantage could be nullified.
 
NedStark said:
I think Roddick in his 2003 form could go through Martin and Wheaton.

As for Courier and Edberg 1993 version, I had already explained - Roddick could rely on his serve against both of them.

If I am Roddick I would prefer facing them over Stich, against whom my serve advantage could be nullified.
Click to expand...
His serve advantage would have been largely nullified against Martin and Wheaton as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Is Vilas the past great who causes the most disagreement/dispute
2 3
Replies
101
Views
2K
grandefrankie
G
T
The "Game Always Evolves" Falsehood Is A Complete Myth!
Replies
2
Views
142
Tennis Devolution
T
Razer
Adriano Panatta says : "Roger is still the GOAT despite Novak's 23 slams ..."
2 3 4
Replies
151
Views
6K
SonnyT
S
T
Sustainability of Two-Week Masters Tournaments -- Is the calendar too packed?
Replies
16
Views
1K
tkramer15
T
D
Who is the greatest of all??
Replies
29
Views
2K
ksbh
ksbh
Back
Top