Using the h2h logic, Roddick is the greatest

[axlrose]

Let's say the courts never changed. Who is challenging Roger? Explain.

In fact there's a good chance he would have more slams than he does now.

Don't you think Rod Laver would have had at least 20 Slams and more than 3 CYGS if he wasn't excluded from playing Slams in his prime?

"If" doesn't count.

 

[KINGROGER]

Even a clumsy servebot like Isner could push Nadal to 5 at Roland Garros 11, imagine what Federer would have done to Nadal if they met.

Oh wait, they DID meet at that tournament and all the Almighty Fedr could do was taking a set.

Sorry, things don't work that way.

Fed serve isn’t as big as Isner’s.

 

[True Fanerer]

I don't know, there must be someone else who are capable of doing what Henman and Ancic have done.

Actually Ancic beat him when courts have already been slowed down but I like him so I include his name to this post : D

I don't see it. Djokovic maybe once. Roger wins 2008 vs Nadal. That's 2 Wimbledons gained. Roddick may have slipped one in there. So, we are back to 9 Wimbledons and that's being generous. Plus, that's only including years that he has made finals.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Are you going to say 19 > 14 and Pete has no RG?

I hope no-one does, that would be childish and unecessarily cruel (althought true).

Can we talk about Sampras never beating Fed although they played 100% of their matches in conditions that hugely favoured him, though (surface-wise, ranking-wise, and age-wise)? H2H FTW!

 

[KINGROGER]

If so, my answer is I don't care. All I care is Pete won everything on fast courts while Fedr has won almost everything on slow courts, which are inferior, lower class than fast courts, according to the majority of Fedr fans.

Hahaha.

Most of Fed’s USOs were fast. And slowing down Wimbledon actually cost him titles there. If they kept it fast then good luck Nadal and Djokovic winning 5 combined.

 

[axlrose]

Fed serve isn’t as big as Isner’s.

I don't think Big serve is a big deal for Rafa. Besides, overall I rate Fedr's serve very very close behind Pete's serve, which mean one of the greatest serves of all time.

 

[True Fanerer]

Don't you think Rod Laver would have had at least 20 Slams and more than 3 CYGS if he wasn't excluded from playing Slams in his prime?

"If" doesn't count.

Don't you think that Fed and Sampras are more comparable since they atleast played a match against one another? Sure Laver is top 5. He was too short to be as successful in today's field.

 

[zagor]

Roddick way underrated. At his peak he'd destroy Nadal and Djokovic on anything but clay.

Nah, but he'd do better against them than he did against peak Fed, match-ups.

Murray would handle him though, unless Roddick's absolutely GOATing on his serve like he was in 2009 Wimbledon. An in-form Murray is a nightmare for big servers (not all-courters, that's a different category).

If that's the case Raonic would beat them at his peak too

Raonic is nowhere near the player Roddick was at his best, never was and never will be.

That's like equating James Blake and Wawrinka or something.

 

[KINGROGER]

I don't think Big serve is a big deal for Rafa. Besides, overall I rate Fedr's serve very very close behind Pete's serve, which mean one of the greatest serves of all time.

Yeah but that’s why Isner got to 5 sets.

 

[axlrose]

Don't you think that Fed and Sampras are more comparable since they atleast played a match against one another? Sure Laver is top 5. He was too short to be as successful in today's field.

If he has 2x Slams and 3 CYGS you'd still rate him top 5, not the GOAT?

: D

Fine.

 

[True Fanerer]

I hope no-one does, that would be childish and unecessarily cruel (althought true).

Can we talk about Sampras never beating Fed although they played 100% of their matches in conditions that hugely favoured him, though (surface-wise, ranking-wise, and age-wise)? H2H FTW!

Exactly. The surface didn't change until the following year.

 

[zagor]

I don't think Big serve is a big deal for Rafa. Besides, overall I rate Fedr's serve very very close behind Pete's serve, which mean one of the greatest serves of all time.

Sampras' serve was much heavier than Fed's, and his disguise and placement was just as good at the very least.

Fed has a great serve but it's absolutely the most overrated part of his game.

 

[axlrose]

I hope no-one does, that would be childish and unecessarily cruel (althought true).

Can we talk about Sampras never beating Fed although they played 100% of their matches in conditions that hugely favoured him, though (surface-wise, ranking-wise, and age-wise)? H2H FTW!

Oh please, H2H is the last thing Fred's fan want to mention : D

 

[True Fanerer]

If he has 2x Slams and 3 CYGS you'd still rate him top 5, not the GOAT?

: D

Fine.

Hard to compare. I've watched old film of Laver. I'm not old enough to have ever seen him play. He was a beast. New technology he would have some mean ground strokes. I think the height would hold him back a little though.

 

[axlrose]

Haha OK fine, at least you guys agree with me on 2 things: A>B>C doesn't mean A>C and slower doesn't mean inferior, degeneracy.

Thank you, good luck.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Don't you think Rod Laver would have had at least 20 Slams and more than 3 CYGS if he wasn't excluded from playing Slams in his prime?

"If" doesn't count.

I actually don't (think so about Laver). Because if he doesn't get excluded, neither do the other pros, which means that he never gets his '62 CYGS and probably never wins any of his first 6 slams, or maybe one at most. So, does he get to 20 if he starts winning in, say, '64 or '65? Nope, no way in hell. In fact, in such a scenario, he probably ends close enough to where he is now, with just a few more (I guess you could aalso argue for less, if things didn't go his way, but that would really be stretching it and I would bet on "more"). Let's say 14-16, for the sake of argument (or 12-14 for the "Laver wouldn't be winning anything because he was too small" crowd), but 20 would definitely be a few bridges too far, imho...

 

[tarutani]

Roddick way underrated. At his peak he'd destroy Nadal and Djokovic on anything but clay.

Federerfans logic

Lost to peak Federer = would win except Federer

 

[JackGates]

Oh please, H2H is the last thing Fred's fan want to mention : D

Not really, we love to mention the h2h.

I'm proud that Fed lost to legends. Better than losing to Davy, Rosol, Brown.

Look, my logic is this. Everyone loses. But, if you lose, at least make it as painless as possible, lose past your best and deep in majors and in close five setters.

You don't realize that h2h makes Fed look even better, when in context. Fed was so great with his B game that he made it deep. Rafa with his B game either didn't play or didn't make the final.

So, yeah Rafa's wins over Federer are even more overshadowed by his losses vs several lower guys.

Guys, wouldn't you rather Rafa have losing h2h vs Federer and winning those slams he lost to Brown???

I mean, how can Rafa fans be happy with that? I can say, ok Fed lost rarerly, but at least it was freaking clay goat, I'm still proud.

So, Nadal fans are the last ones who use the h2h, for some reason they think it helps them I don't really know why.

 

[JackGates]

Not really, we love to mention the h2h.

I'm proud that Fed lost to legends. Better than losing to Davy, Rosol, Brown.

Look, my logic is this. Everyone loses. But, if you lose, at least make it as painless as possible, lose past your best and deep in majors and in close five setters.

You don't realize that h2h makes Fed look even better, when in context. Fed was so great with his B game that he made it deep. Rafa with his B game either didn't play or didn't make the final.

So, yeah Rafa's wins over Federer are even more overshadowed by his losses vs several lower guys.

Guys, wouldn't you rather Rafa have losing h2h vs Federer and winning those slams he lost to Brown???

I mean, how can Rafa fans be happy with that? I can say, ok Fed lost rarerly, but at least it was freaking clay goat, I'm still proud.

So, Nadal fans are the last ones who use the h2h, for some reason they think it helps them I don't really know why.

Even in 2017, isn't better for Nadal fans that Nadal lost to Fed in those finals and is now nr.1, rather than losing early and be 0-0 vs Federer? Surely you are more proud and at least you can say, he is nr.1 and he lost to an all time great player only. Isn't this better???

 

[JackGates]

When Rafa lost to Fed in 2017, aren't you Nadal fans more proud of that?

You can say, hey at least he only lost to finals and vs all time great and he is still the best in the world.

How it would be better if Rafa was nr.2 and lost early and was 0-0 vs Federer? So, yeah we Fed fans are proud of the h2h.

 

[thrust]

Roddick way underrated. At his peak he'd destroy Nadal and Djokovic on anything but clay.

NONSENSE! Roddick has NO business being in the HOF.

 

[roysid]

I can't argue with a logic like that. Roddick is GOAT.

Who else can botch a backhand overhand volley with full open court while having set point to go 2 sets up at Wimbledon final.
Definitely a GOAT

 

[JackGates]

I can't argue with a logic like that. Roddick is GOAT.

Who else can botch a backhand overhand volley with full open court while having set point to go 2 sets up at Wimbledon final.
Definitely a GOAT

How about Djokovic who misses multiple easy overheads while break up in the fifth vs Nadal at the FO?

Roddick missed one shot and also leads Djokovic in the h2h. You have proven my point, Roddick is mentally tougher than Djokovic.

 

[MasterZeb]

This post perfectly encapsulates some on the logic that gets thrown around on this board. Thanks for the laugh OP

 

[Alexrb]

Fed is my favorite player, but I actually miss Roddick a lot. Warts and all the guy did bring it every single time he stepped on the court and he always wanted to win badly. There was always a circus type atmosphere when he played. Kyrgios has a bit of Roddick I think.

Roddick really should get a lot more respect.

You forgot his interviews and press conferences. Undisputed interview GOAT!

 

[Pheasant]

And lastly, Brooklyn Decker>Andy Roddick by a long shot.

Ergo, Brooklyn Decker is the GOAT. And I have no problem with that statement.

 

[JackGates]

And lastly, Brooklyn Decker>Andy Roddick by a long shot.

Ergo, Brooklyn Decker is the GOAT. And I have no problem with that statement.

No, it's not like that. Roddick has winning h2h vs several players who own big 3 including Djokovic. I'm not basing Roddick's h2h vs one player, that would be crazy.

So, you can't use Decker.

 

[Pheasant]

No, it's not like that. Roddick has winning h2h vs several players who own big 3 including Djokovic. I'm not basing Roddick's h2h vs one player, that would be crazy.

So, you can't use Decker.

I think that I get this. With that in mind, I say Kyrgios is already the GOAT. He actually has a 5-4 record vs the Big 3. Unlike Roddick, he directly owns the Top 3. Roddick only owns the people that own the Big 3.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A 7-7 record VS Lleyton Hewitt disputes this.

 

[JackGates]

I think that I get this. With that in mind, I say Kyrgios is already the GOAT. He actually has a 5-4 record vs the Big 3. Unlike Roddick, he directly owns the Top 3. Roddick only owns the people that own the Big 3.

No, he doesn't lead Fed and Rafa. It's skewed, because he owns Djokovic so much.

And even if Kyrgios owned them, Murray would be used as a tie-breaker where Kyrgios is 0-6, Roddick has 3 wins vs Murray.

And to be fair Djokovic was injured and on the way down when Kyrgios got him.

Also Roddick was leading h2h vs Nadal 1-0 in 2004, then Roddick declined and Rafa took over, but in his peak Roddick was also leading Nadal.

So, no Kyrgios can't be close.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, he doesn't lead Fed and Rafa. It's skewed, because he owns Djokovic so much.

And even if Kyrgios owned them, Murray would be used as a tie-breaker where Kyrgios is 0-6, Roddick has 3 wins vs Murray.

And to be fair Djokovic was injured and on the way down when Kyrgios got him.

Also Roddick was leading h2h vs Nadal 1-0 in 2004, then Roddick declined and Rafa took over, but in his peak Roddick was also leading Nadal.

So, no Kyrgios can't be close.

Roddick didn't even decline in 2006, he just hit a slump for a while. He declined in 2010-2011.

 

[JackGates]

Sorry guys, but there is no-one that has a leading h2h vs one of the big three and at the same time owns so many of their conquerors.

 

[JackGates]

Roddick didn't even decline in 2006, he just hit a slump for a while. He declined in 2010-2011.

Semantics, slump or decline, doesn't matter, he wasn't at his best.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Roddick isn't the greatest but he certainly is a solid player.

Here are his YE stats from when he first started playing to when he retired.
2000: 156
2001: 14
2002: 10
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 6
2007: 6
2008: 8
2009: 7
2010: 8
2011: 14
2012: 39

 

[Zetty]

Eli Manning is greater than Tom Brady because he leads the Superbowl h2h is 2-0
Larry Bird is greater than Michael Jordan because Larry leads their h2h 17-11
Rafael Nadal is greater than Roger Federer because he leads the h2h 23-15

Stupid is as stupid does

But Larry Bird is better than Michael Jordan, tougher competition and an even more clutch shooterer. He only started winning after the Celtics, Lakers, and Pistons broke down.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Semantics, slump or decline, doesn't matter, he wasn't at his best.

He was back to his best by 2007 though. I mean look at his ranking history; you'll see that his real decline came much later.

 

[Tennisanity]

Nah, but he'd do better against them than he did against peak Fed, match-ups.

Murray would handle him though, unless Roddick's absolutely GOATing on his serve like he was in 2009 Wimbledon. An in-form Murray is a nightmare for big servers (not all-courters, that's a different category).

Don't really see Nadal handling Roddick's serve at Wimbledon. He only got close to Fed because of Fed's confidence issues in 2008.

 

[Tennisanity]

Federerfans logic

Lost to peak Federer = would win except Federer

No actually it's Nadal fan logic. H2H is everything. Roddick leads the H2H against Djokovic.

 

[Tennisanity]

NONSENSE! Roddick has NO business being in the HOF.

I never said he does.

 

[kevaninho]

Eli Manning is greater than Tom Brady because he leads the Superbowl h2h is 2-0
Larry Bird is greater than Michael Jordan because Larry leads their h2h 17-11
Rafael Nadal is greater than Roger Federer because he leads the h2h 23-15

Stupid is as stupid does

You just used team sports to compare with an individual sport.

Clown of the year award for you.

 

[kevaninho]

Not really, we love to mention the h2h.

I'm proud that Fed lost to legends. Better than losing to Davy, Rosol, Brown.

Look, my logic is this. Everyone loses. But, if you lose, at least make it as painless as possible, lose past your best and deep in majors and in close five setters.

You don't realize that h2h makes Fed look even better, when in context. Fed was so great with his B game that he made it deep. Rafa with his B game either didn't play or didn't make the final.

So, yeah Rafa's wins over Federer are even more overshadowed by his losses vs several lower guys.

Guys, wouldn't you rather Rafa have losing h2h vs Federer and winning those slams he lost to Brown???

I mean, how can Rafa fans be happy with that? I can say, ok Fed lost rarerly, but at least it was freaking clay goat, I'm still proud.

So, Nadal fans are the last ones who use the h2h, for some reason they think it helps them I don't really know why.

What slams did he lose to Brown?

 

[tennisaddict]

Not really, we love to mention the h2h.

I'm proud that Fed lost to legends. Better than losing to Davy, Rosol, Brown.

Look, my logic is this. Everyone loses. But, if you lose, at least make it as painless as possible, lose past your best and deep in majors and in close five setters.

You don't realize that h2h makes Fed look even better, when in context. Fed was so great with his B game that he made it deep. Rafa with his B game either didn't play or didn't make the final.

So, yeah Rafa's wins over Federer are even more overshadowed by his losses vs several lower guys.

Guys, wouldn't you rather Rafa have losing h2h vs Federer and winning those slams he lost to Brown???

I mean, how can Rafa fans be happy with that? I can say, ok Fed lost rarerly, but at least it was freaking clay goat, I'm still proud.

So, Nadal fans are the last ones who use the h2h, for some reason they think it helps them I don't really know why.

Solid post.

Fed really leads the h2h. 95 titles, 19 slams and 1050 match wins are what is relevant at the end of the day

 

[Deleted member 3771]

He is actually the 2nd greatest along with Moya as the ony other guys besides Rafa to overcome the disadvantage of playing with a tweener racquet and win a singles slam.

 

[clout]

No, he would not.

Nah, but he'd do better against them than he did against peak Fed, match-ups.

Murray would handle him though, unless Roddick's absolutely GOATing on his serve like he was in 2009 Wimbledon. An in-form Murray is a nightmare for big servers (not all-courters, that's a different category).



Raonic is nowhere near the player Roddick was at his best, never was and never will be.

That's like equating James Blake and Wawrinka or something.

Well my initial post was supposed to be sarcastic considering the guy I replied to thought Roddick would beat Nadal/Nole........(absurd right). I obviously know Roddick is way better than Milos, but regardless neither of them at them at their best come close to beating Nadal and Djokovic at their best. There's a reason why Nadal and Nole have a combined 28 slams, while the former two only have a combined, one slam.

 

[clout]

Roddick isn't the greatest but he certainly is a solid player.

Here are his YE stats from when he first started playing to when he retired.
2000: 156
2001: 14
2002: 10
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 6
2007: 6
2008: 8
2009: 7
2010: 8
2011: 14
2012: 39

Roddick was a very solid/consistent player, and just with his booming serve itself, he was never out of any match. However, he wasn't some ATG player either, and I think he accomplished as much as he should of, nothing more and nothing less. Also, the fact that some people out there think Roddick can beat Rafa and Nole is what makes me question humanity.

 

[Tennisanity]

Well my initial post was supposed to be sarcastic considering the guy I replied to thought Roddick would beat Nadal/Nole........(absurd right). I obviously know Roddick is way better than Milos, but regardless neither of them at them at their best come close to beating Nadal and Djokovic at their best. There's a reason why Nadal and Nole have a combined 28 slams, while the former two only have a combined, one slam.

Roddick leads Djoko 5-4. Most of those Roddick was not at his best.

 

[JackGates]

What slams did he lose to Brown?

Does it matter, aren't all slams equal?

 

[clout]

Roddick leads Djoko 5-4. Most of those Roddick was not at his best.

Yeah but in Nole's fairness if they played those matches between 2011-16, that number would be very different. Although, based off of the matchups, I think Arod would find marginally (very marginally) more success against Nole than against Fedal.

 

[clout]

A-rod was a sure-fire top 5/10 player who had a name for himself in his own gen, and had one of the best serves on tour which made him dangerous towards anyone, and overall had a very solid career. However, he was no ATG either, and he won as much as he should of won. I think that's a fair enough assessment of A-Rod.