Tsitsipas vs Roddick on clay - Who wins this fascinating hypothetical?

???

  • They split meetings

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68

Bukmeikara

Legend
He is ok on green clay. Arent all his titles on green clay in the U.S
No idea. Houston its on red I think and he had one in Poland if my memory serves me correct. The partial reason for his lack of results on clay were that tournaments were outside North America. I am reasonably certain that if there was a Masters on clay in Usa - he would have reached the final at least. And the last year that Roddick tried on clay was 2009 after that he just gave up mentally.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
This is not even a comparison, apart from Roddick fans no body will take Roddick over Tsits on clay, Tsits already has better result on clay than Roddick has over lifetime, one master final already a round 4 in RG, and it will get better by every upcoming years.
 

Tshooter

Legend
He has 4-5 titles on clay + two SF in Rome. He may be atrocious compared to his overal career but not compared to the avarage player
He was awful on clay. 3 titles were Houston, maybe the weakest clay court draw in tennis. Another title was "St. Poelten." I never heard of it. It must have been him, some appearance money and a bunch of challenger players. I personally saw Andreev toy with Roddick on clay. The match score doesn't do it justice. The 5th title was Atlanta so I'm assuming it was the usual American suspects.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
He was awful on clay. 3 titles were Houston, maybe the weakest clay court draw in tennis. The 4th title was "St. Poelten." I never heard of it. It must have been him, some appearance money and a bunch of challenger players. I personally saw Andreev toy with Roddick on clay. The match score doesn't do it justice.
Andreev has beaten peak Nadal on clay. Roddick has beaten Coria, Sampras, Davydenko, Melzer for his clay titles. Just stop
 

Sport

Legend
As predictable as Tsitsipass vs Roddick on grass. The winners are Claysipass and Roddigrass.
Incorrect analogy. Tsitsipas still has time to improve on grass, while Roddick has (for obvious reasons) no time to improve on clay. Tsitsipas' career has just started so of course you can't compare him with a man who made many Wimbledon finals in his career. If Tsitsipas does nothing at Wimbledon in the next decade, then yes, Roddick is better on grass.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Probably Tsitsipas. Oh, Roddick had a few decent showings on the surface for sure - no matter how early on it was, any version of Roddick beating any version of Coria on any kind of clay is impressive, he looked like a superb clay courter against Robredo both times they played thanks to the matchup issue they had, and it's worth noting that during Fed's almost flawless 2009 Madrid run it was only him of all people that managed to take a set - but on the whole he has a lot more valleys than peaks on his clay court resume.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
Incorrect analogy. Tsitsipas still has time to improve on grass, while Roddick has (for obvious reasons) no time to improve on clay. Tsitsipas' career has just started so of course you can't compare him with a man who made many Wimbledon finals in his career. If Tsitsipas does nothing at Wimbledon in the next decade, then yes, Roddick is better on grass.
20 year Roddick also beats current Tsitsipas on grass.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
On Houston clay Roddick no problem.

There would be a problem for Roddick on any other clay court, though.
 
I have news for you.

His return stats are worse than Roddick. He's certainly not making up for that by serving better.
I see the Lew school of tennis analysis is in vogue these days.

We are comparing a top player today to someone who pretty much burnt out in 2005 and then had one lucky run in 2009.

In what should have been his peak years he threw in the towel as he was drifting into the 30s in the rankings.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
On Houston clay Roddick no problem.

There would be a problem for Roddick on any other clay court, though.
Have Tsitsipas wear a Robredo mask and his old ST gear, problem solved.

I see the Lew school of tennis analysis is in vogue these days.

We are comparing a top player today to someone who pretty much burnt out in 2005 and then had one lucky run in 2009.

In what should have been his peak years he threw in the towel as he was drifting into the 30s in the rankings.
Pretty much burnt out in 2005 and yet didn't drop out of the top ten until 2011/2012 when constant injuries finally took their toll.

I see.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
I see the Lew school of tennis analysis is in vogue these days.

We are comparing a top player today to someone who pretty much burnt out in 2005 and then had one lucky run in 2009.

In what should have been his peak years he threw in the towel as he was drifting into the 30s in the rankings.
Call me when Tsitsipas wins a Slam and finishes YE#1 at 21
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
As long as you promise to return the call when Tsit wins 5 plus slams and stays in the top 5 for more than 2 minutes.
... I know you're trying to be clever and make it sound like he was only there for the time it takes to down a cup of coffee, but Roddick was in the top five for 150+ weeks, easy.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It's exactly 10 years ago that Roddick made his only foray into the 4th round at Roland Garros. Tsitsipas has just done the same albeit at a much younger age (20 vs 26) and he did just make a clay Masters final too which Roddick never did.

Given that he has just taken a former RG champion to 5 tight sets, I think I'll go with Stef. Sorry, Andy. :cool:
 
And still somehow in the top ten long after said era ended. Neither has to do with the fact that your statement was A: objectively wrong and B: a textbook example of how not to utilize hyperbole.
Well hyperbole/sarcasm is a fair response to a misuse of stats.

Nonetheless I am keen to improve my use of hyperbole so I am interested to hear from you about some textbook examples of how to utilise hyperbole.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
Well hyperbole/sarcasm is a fair response to a misuse of stats.

Nonetheless I am keen to improve my use of hyperbole so I am interested to hear from you about some textbook examples of how to utilise hyperbole.
Why not.

First, one of the more handy tips I got from a better writer than I regarding hyperbole was to not use any examples that can be proven quantitatively wrong. Furthermore, the more fantastic/exaggerated you get with it (two minutes indeed, honestly), the more attention gets called to the degree of force you're using to push your point instead of the point itself, which in this case is already muddled - you said that Roddick was in the top five for a very short amount of time, I said that was incorrect, and then you said that was only because of the era. That last part, while certainly a point worthy of debate, had zero to do with your original assertion, and swerving like that does an argument no good. Also, if you use 'two minutes' to describe Roddick's multiple year stay in the top five, how would you describe Rafter's stint at #1, or Federer's own time at #1? A tenth of a femtosecond and multiple millennia, respectively? You talk like that and it's very easy to dismiss you as simply being an overly biased fan, overshadowing that Rafter really was #1 for a short amount of time and that Federer was #1 for a very long time. It's easy to push a good thing too far, and bear in mind; there's a reason law students are warned not overuse it. It can cause more problems than it solves when you're trying to debate.

To your first point; while it's hardly fair to fully judge Tsitsipas' return game as it is now because his career is so young, if his return stats really are worse than Roddick's then he needs to work on that ASAP, because Roddick was not a good returner by top player standards and the return's arguably more important in this era than the one guys like Roddick, Federer and Hewitt came up in.
 
Last edited:

Sport

Legend
Roddick has 5 times as many clay court titles as Nadal has indoor HC titles.
Well Nadal blows chunks indoors too. I thought that was an accepted fact by now. He has years his RR record at the YEC was 0-3.
Nadal is much better on indoor hard courts than Roddick on clay.

Reaching the final of the greatest tournament >>> winning irrelevant titles.

A player winning an ATP 250 is not greater than a player reaching a Grand Slam final, even if the first has one title and the second zero titles.

Nadal reached twice the finals of the indoor ATP finals/YEC, and has defeated Federer, Djokovic and Murray on indoor hard courts. Roddick reached 0 Roland-Garros finals and never defeated Federer or Nadal on clay. In fact, Roddick never reached the quarterfinals of Roland-Garros while Nadal reached the YEC finals twice.
 
Last edited:
Why not.

First, one of the more handy tips I got from a better writer than I regarding hyperbole was to not use any examples that can be proven quantitatively wrong. Furthermore, the more fantastic/exaggerated you get with it (two minutes indeed, honestly), the more attention gets called to the degree of force you're using to push your point instead of the point itself, which in this case is already muddled - you said that Roddick was in the top five for a very short amount of time, I said that was incorrect, and then you said that was only because of the era. That last part, while certainly a point worthy of debate, had zero to do with your original assertion, and swerving like that does an argument no good. Also, if you use 'two minutes' to describe Roddick's multiple year stay in the top five, how would you describe Rafter's stint at #1, or Federer's own time at #1? A tenth of a femtosecond and multiple millennia, respectively? You talk like that and it's very easy to dismiss you as simply being an overly biased fan, overshadowing that Rafter really was #1 for a short amount of time and that Federer was #1 for a very long time. It's easy to push a good thing too far, and bear in mind; there's a reason law students are warned not overuse it. It can cause more problems than it solves when you're trying to debate.

To your first point; while it's hardly fair to fully judge Tsitsipas' return game as it is now because his career is so young, if his return stats really are worse than Roddick's then he needs to work on that ASAP, because Roddick was not a good returner by top player standards and the return's arguably more important in this era than the one guys like Roddick, Federer and Hewitt came up in.
Of course it could it just be a case of you not understanding the meaning of the word hyperbole:-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=hyperbole&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

(As what your learned friend is suggesting has nothing to do with the ‘subtle art’ of hyperbole, but more to do with cold hard facts. And I say to you brother, where is the fun in that!?)
 
Last edited:
Nadal is much better on indoor hard courts than Roddick on clay.

Reaching the final of the greatest tournament >>> winning irrelevant titles.
I agree on that too. Nadal indoors >>> Roddick on clay. Heck it is even possible Nadal indoors > Roddick indoors (he did reach the YEC final and win a Masters indoors after all, neither which Roddick ever did). Yet even Nadal indoors sort of sucks, atleast for top player standards, making the overall point of Roddick on clay even more clear.

The poll results speak for themselves, especialy when talking about a guy who has proven diddley squat on clay, and couldnt even beat a washed up grandpa on clay today, but it still obviously over Roddick on the surface overall. This is a silly troll thread anyway, which there are an increasingly large number of here lately it seems. I imagine it was started by a Roddick hater just to make fun of Roddick by randomly picking on by far his worst surface. I dont think Roddick deserves hating, and I dont want to indulge in a pointless topic and troll thread anymore so will leave it at that.
 
I do wonder though how Roddick might have done at the U.S Open on clay had it been on Har Tru like in the 70s. That is the only type of clay I could see him really excelling at. I dont see him doing what Connors did naturally (3 straight finals on U.S Open clay, including the 76 title) but I could see him doing surprisingly well, way better than he does at RG and most of the European clay events. He does have a very good record at the US Clay Championships, which sometimes have semi decent fields.
 
To your first point; while it's hardly fair to fully judge Tsitsipas' return game as it is now because his career is so young, if his return stats really are worse than Roddick's then he needs to work on that ASAP, because Roddick was not a good returner by top player standards and the return's arguably more important in this era than the one guys like Roddick, Federer and Hewitt came up in.
It shows the dearth of talent of young players that people are that excited about Tsitsipas. Really dire straights.
 
Top