The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
VS.
Is this a joke ?
Roddick is atrocious on clay.
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 is ok on green clay. Arent all his titles on green clay in the U.S
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
FederAs predictable as Tsitsipass vs Roddick on grass. The winners are Claysipass and Roddigrass.
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.
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.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.
20 year Roddick also beats current Tsitsipas on grass.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.
Is this a joke? In which paralel universe can you compare Roddick on clay with Tsitsipas?
Andreev has beaten peak Nadal on clay. Roddick has beaten Coria, Sampras, Davydenko, Melzer for his clay titles. Just stop
I have news for you.Roddick, Nalbandian and Safin are the overrated GOATS for sure.
Young Tsit is already a much more complete player than Roddick.
I have news for you.
His return stats are worse than Roddick. He's certainly not making up for that by serving better.
Have Tsitsipas wear a Robredo mask and his old ST gear, problem solved.On Houston clay Roddick no problem.
There would be a problem for Roddick on any other clay court, though.
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 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 21I 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
If the poll was Roddick vs Sampras on clay, Sampras would be the easy winner. Roddick blew chunks on clay, particularly red clay.
... 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.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.
Roddick has 5 times as many clay court titles as Nadal has indoor HC titles.
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.Three years near the top in the post Sampras vacuum era.
As long as you promise to return the call when Tsit wins 5 plus slams
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.
Even the Spanish recognising how godly Roddick was when he served 240kph+ into th net.
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.
Roddick has 5 times as many clay court titles as Nadal has indoor HC titles.
Nadal is much better on indoor hard courts than Roddick on clay.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.
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.
Nadal is much better on indoor hard courts than Roddick on clay.
Reaching the final of the greatest tournament >>> winning irrelevant titles.
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.