Wawrinka vs Roddick. Who is greater?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

Who is greater?


  • Total voters
    121

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Finally a poll between @Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil 's two favorite players. Bery tough decision.

#Sophie'sChoice
He'll look at the poll and vote purely to spite me.

Then he'll claim Roddick is just a worse Raonic with a hat.
Come on, guys. Wawa is not that much greater than Roddick. Give @Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil 's favorite player some love in the poll.
As I said before, in order to become an equal to that annoying Wawrinka, the first thing Roddick has to do is surpass the tall Medjugorje ball bouncer, who on top of having one Slam himself was a tougher opponent for Federer in AO (5 sets loss), Wimbledon (two sets up and had MPs) and USO (actually won in straights). So please guys, don't place Andy in even slightly higher leagues until he shows some clear evidence that he is better than Cilic. Thenks

Having said that, if we ever got a Wawdick Wimbledon final I'd request for another apocalypse to cancel that one out.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
As I said before, in order to become an equal to that annoying Wawrinka, the first thing Roddick has to do is surpass the tall Medjugorje ball bouncer, who on top of having one Slam himself was a tougher opponent for Federer in AO (5 sets loss), Wimbledon (two sets up and had MPs) and USO (actually won in straights). So please guys, don't place Andy in even slightly higher leagues until he shows some clear evidence that he is better than Cilic. Thenks

Having said that, if we ever got a Wawdick Wimbledon final I'd request for another apocalypse to cancel that one out.
Wawrinka would request that same apocalypse

Peak Roddick would probably lose like 1 set to Fed over those 3 matches lmao
 
Greater (I think a lot still don't distinguish between greater and better yet) has to be Wawrinka. 3 slams vs 1, there is just no discussion. Plus even if he is a great match up for him he beat the possible future GOAT and one of the GOATs Djokovic in the finals of two and en route to another. Roddick won his lone slam beating Nalbandian and Ferrero. Roddick has his YE#1 which is huge when Wawrinka never got close to #1, and has many more Masters, and actually a lot of other advantages, but still not enough.

Better player is a whole other topic though. I think you could make strong arguments either way there. If forced to handicapt there I would say Wawrinka is the better player on slower courts, clay by a country mile of course, and Roddick the better on fast courts (apart from maybe indoors), grass by a huge margin.

A far more appropriate and interesting poll here would be "better" player, not greater player. I would strongly consider giving my vote to Roddick in that, but not in this. It think the poll would also be much closer as atleast some are able to distinguish the clear difference between greater and better.
 
Peak Roddick would probably lose like 1 set to Fed over those 3 matches lmao

Not a chance. You massively underrate what a horrible match up for Roddick that Federer is (he is also a horrible match up for Wawrinka despite their games being totally different).

He might do better than Wawrinka has done, apart from clay, I do agree there.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Simply because even the Stanimal of 2013+ never would've won slams in Federer's prime years because of a bad match up. And he wouldn't have a RG either. He only won one of those when a relatively old Nadal was in a slump which never happened to young Nadal. Plus, even if by a miracle the young Nadal stumbled ala 2015-16, a younger Federer would still be like an 80/20 favourite on clay.
To be fair, Roddick wouldn’t win anything either if his prime overlaps with the big three. He was lucky that he could win this one slam against Ferrero without facing anyone of worth and once prime Federer showed up it was over. As long as there was only one GOAT candidate around he could still reach some finals but never overcome Federer there. If he had to face three (or even four if you want to include Murray) way superior players in their prime he wouldn’t even reach those finals. Fact is in the end 3 > 1 and this is with Stan facing way stronger opponents.
 
To be fair, Roddick wouldn’t win anything either if his prime overlaps with the big three. He was lucky that he could win this one slam against Ferrero without facing anyone of worth and once prime Federer showed up it was over. As long as there was only one GOAT candidate around he could still reach some finals but never overcome Federer there. If he had to face three (or even four if you want to include Murray) way superior players in their prime he wouldn’t even reach those finals. Fact is in the end 3 > 1 and this is with Stan facing way stronger opponents.

It is hard to say. I could see Roddick winning anywhere from 1-4 majors if his prime occurs where Wawrinka's did instead, but I agree he does not win a boatload of slams like some will delude themselves to, and he very probably doesn't win more than Warwinka (3). Wawrinka trading places with Roddick could easily have 0.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think Roddick is actually a better player in many ways. Far more consistent, and Wawrinka does just as barely against Fedal despite that he plays them far older and worse than Roddick did. Actually Roddick is the one with a winning head to head with Djokovic too vs Wawrinka's 6-19 one, LOL. Granted most of that is built on only 2009 wins, which is the worst ever version of Djokovic (minus 2017) but still something.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Don't see either as an ATG as I believe you need to at least reach number one at some point in a 15 year career to be considered an ATG.

However, slams are needed, and I think 3 slams puts you in that category if you have reached number one... hence, Murray.

Roddick was ranked #1 from November 2003 to February 2004. :cool:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It is hard to say. I could see Roddick winning anywhere from 1-4 majors if his prime occurs where Wawrinka's did instead, but I agree he does not win a boatload of slams like some will delude themselves to, and he very probably doesn't win more than Warwinka (3). Wawrinka trading places with Roddick could easily have 0.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think Roddick is actually a better player in many ways. Far more consistent, and Wawrinka does just as barely against Fedal despite that he plays them far older and worse than Roddick did. Actually Roddick is the one with a winning head to head with Djokovic too vs Wawrinka's 6-19 one, LOL. Granted most of that is built on only 2009 wins, which is the worst ever version of Djokovic (minus 2017) but still something.
The worst version of Djojovic is 2010, not 2009.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
To be fair, Roddick wouldn’t win anything either if his prime overlaps with the big three. He was lucky that he could win this one slam against Ferrero without facing anyone of worth and once prime Federer showed up it was over. As long as there was only one GOAT candidate around he could still reach some finals but never overcome Federer there. If he had to face three (or even four if you want to include Murray) way superior players in their prime he wouldn’t even reach those finals. Fact is in the end 3 > 1 and this is with Stan facing way stronger opponents.
I could see Roddick beating the likes of 2013 Wimb Djokovic, 2014 USO Djokovic and 2016 USO Djokovic.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
To be fair, Roddick wouldn’t win anything either if his prime overlaps with the big three. He was lucky that he could win this one slam against Ferrero without facing anyone of worth and once prime Federer showed up it was over. As long as there was only one GOAT candidate around he could still reach some finals but never overcome Federer there. If he had to face three (or even four if you want to include Murray) way superior players in their prime he wouldn’t even reach those finals. Fact is in the end 3 > 1 and this is with Stan facing way stronger opponents.
OTOH, Wawrinka wouldn't have won anything either if Djoker had done his job.

Or think of it like this: Stan's 2016 USO = Roddick's 2003 USO.

Stan's other 2 slams are the result of Djoker not doing his job while Fed did.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Not a chance. You massively underrate what a horrible match up for Roddick that Federer is (he is also a horrible match up for Wawrinka despite their games being totally different).

He might do better than Wawrinka has done, apart from clay, I do agree there.

So the Fedal match-up changed because of age but other match-ups wouldn't, ha.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not a chance. You massively underrate what a horrible match up for Roddick that Federer is (he is also a horrible match up for Wawrinka despite their games being totally different).

He might do better than Wawrinka has done, apart from clay, I do agree there.
Please, peak Roddick would like his chances against 0lderer.
 
OTOH, Wawrinka wouldn't have won anything either if Djoker had done his job.

Or think of it like this: Stan's 2016 USO = Roddick's 2003 USO.

Stan's other 2 slams are the result of Djoker not doing his job while Fed did.

True but that really doesn't mean anything to who is greater. Kafelnikov is a 0 slam winner today (I would bet money on it), heck if got the same draws say Todd Martin got he is a 0 slam winner in his own era, he has no big wins in slams at all, but he is still a worthy HOF inductee based on his career.
 
The qualities that made Federer a terrible match-up for Roddick have all diminished considerably with age. Except the serve I guess.

Yeah but most of their matches weren't close/competitive, and 0lderer is still darn good. Like I said I see the matches Roddick was on fire and truly made it competitive like Wimbledon 04 and Wimbledon 09 now turn into wins, but the other matches (still a majority) turn into losses. I did say I imagine he probably does better vs older Federer than Wawrinka, which btw does mean I am acknowledging change as it currently stands he has an even worse record vs Federer than Wawrinka has, but those who think Roddick rolls in wins and dominates old Federer are living in lala land.

Roddick is a funny quandary on this forum. Overrated by the bigger Federer fans (easy to figure out why, lol), then underrated by everyone else.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
stan.jpg
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah but most of their matches weren't close/competitive, and 0lderer is still darn good. Like I said I see the matches Roddick was on fire and truly made it competitive like Wimbledon 04 and Wimbledon 09 now turn into wins, but the other matches (still a majority) turn into losses. I did say I imagine he probably does better vs older Federer than Wawrinka, which btw does mean I am acknowledging change as it currently stands he has an even worse record vs Federer than Wawrinka has, but those who think Roddick rolls in wins and dominates old Federer are living in lala land.

Roddick is a funny quandary on this forum. Overrated by the bigger Federer fans (easy to figure out why, lol), then underrated by everyone else.

Well, besides indoors where Roddick was lacking for some reason, he didn't get crushed that much, only 5 matches out of 17 I would call comprehensive dominance, 2 in 2005 (WB/Canada) and the other 3 being among Federer's career best tournaments (2003 WB, TMC, 2007 AO). Usually the scoreline was respectable. A lot depends on the first set, too, many times Federer won it 7-6 or 7-5 then pulled away. In fact, Roddick is 3-4 against Federer after winning the first set and the four losses are among his closest (Basel 01, WB 04, TMC 06, WB 09), while the only matches he fought well in even after losing first set were USO 06/07 and their lone clay meeting in Madrid 09, irrelevant as it is. Senilerer would be less dominant in first sets and significant tiebreaks, I'm sure Roddick would trouble him whenever he doesn't get locked in pusher mode.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah but most of their matches weren't close/competitive, and 0lderer is still darn good. Like I said I see the matches Roddick was on fire and truly made it competitive like Wimbledon 04 and Wimbledon 09 now turn into wins, but the other matches (still a majority) turn into losses. I did say I imagine he probably does better vs older Federer than Wawrinka, which btw does mean I am acknowledging change as it currently stands he has an even worse record vs Federer than Wawrinka has, but those who think Roddick rolls in wins and dominates old Federer are living in lala land.

Roddick is a funny quandary on this forum. Overrated by the bigger Federer fans (easy to figure out why, lol), then underrated by everyone else.
Roddick wouldn't dominate old Fed, no one suggested that. But 2004/2009 Wimb and 2007 USO Roddick would like his chances against 0lderer.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
OTOH, Wawrinka wouldn't have won anything either if Djoker had done his job.
Well he did not do his job also because Stan simply did not let him (plus the matchup). Stan did. way better against Djokovic than Roddick against Federer. To be honest I cannot see Roddick ever scoring four slam wins against any of the big three of they were remotely in there prime.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well he did not do his job also because Stan simply did not let him (plus the matchup). Stan did. way better against Djokovic than Roddick against Federer. To be honest I cannot see Roddick ever scoring four slam wins against any of the big three of they were remotely in there prime.
It's to Federer's credit that he didn't allow himself to lose to Roddick like Djokovic allowed himself to lose to Wawrinka. Djokovic is the sole reason Wawrinka has 3 slams, as Fedal both own him. I don't think Wawrinka has really played better slam finals than Roddick did at 2004/2009 Wimb.

While Roddick would not win 4 slam matches vs the Big 3, he would win some too, namely 2013 Wimb final against Djokovic, USO 2014 SF against Djokovic and USO 2016 final against Djokovic.

Wawrinka didn't have the entire Big 3 in their prime either, only Djokovic. He never defeated prime healthy Nadal in a slam or prime Fed in a slam.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
I could see Roddick beating the likes of 2013 Wimb Djokovic, 2014 USO Djokovic and 2016 USO Djokovic.
Could be, but only if a very strong version of Roddick (2004 or 2009 Wimbledon) shows up and those versions of Djokovic weren’t exactly strong. Roddick was never the most consistent in reaching latter rounds of slams so it would have needed a lot of luck to reach Djokovic exactly in those tournaments. We also need to keep in mind that there are still Federer, Nadal and Murray in the mix who would beat Roddick way more often than not (the first two close two always) so many things would need to align for Roddick to win a slam, let alone three.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Could be, but only if a very strong version of Roddick (2004 or 2009 Wimbledon) shows up and those versions of Djokovic weren’t exactly strong. Roddick was never the most consistent in reaching latter rounds of slams so it would have needed a lot of luck to reach Djokovic exactly in those tournaments. We also need to keep in mind that there are still Federer, Nadal and Murray in the mix who would beat Roddick way more often than not (the first two close two always) so many things would need to align for Roddick to win a slam, let alone three.
Just like many things aligned for Wawrinka to win 3 slams, the decline of Fedal being the main one. Wawrinka would win 0 slams if all of the Big 3 were in their primes.

And yes, of course Roddick would need to be at his very best and Djokovic below his for Roddick to win. I don't think anyone argued otherwise. I'm just saying it's not that impossible for Roddick to score some slam wins over the Big 3, even in their primes. If even Nishikori and Stan could, I don't see why Roddick wouldn't.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Could be, but only if a very strong version of Roddick (2004 or 2009 Wimbledon) shows up and those versions of Djokovic weren’t exactly strong. Roddick was never the most consistent in reaching latter rounds of slams so it would have needed a lot of luck to reach Djokovic exactly in those tournaments. We also need to keep in mind that there are still Federer, Nadal and Murray in the mix who would beat Roddick way more often than not (the first two close two always) so many things would need to align for Roddick to win a slam, let alone three.
Besides, Stan and Roddick had around the same circumstances: both peaked only when there was 1 prime ATG around. Wawrinka ended up more accomplished, but how much is that attributed to Federer being tougher to beat than Djokovic? Given that Stan and Roddick have an almost identical record against Fed, I'd lean towards this possibility.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Legend
Wawrinka didn't have the entire Big 3 in their prime either, only Djokovic. He never defeated prime healthy Nadal in a slam or prime Fed in a slam.
He never defeated them but lost a hell lot of times against them while they were in their prime and so would Roddick. Difference here is Wawrinka had all three to deal with and all in all he fared way better, while Roddick for most years had “only” Federer to deal with. Even against Federer Stan has at least one slam win.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Could be, but only if a very strong version of Roddick (2004 or 2009 Wimbledon) shows up and those versions of Djokovic weren’t exactly strong. Roddick was never the most consistent in reaching latter rounds of slams so it would have needed a lot of luck to reach Djokovic exactly in those tournaments. We also need to keep in mind that there are still Federer, Nadal and Murray in the mix who would beat Roddick way more often than not (the first two close two always) so many things would need to align for Roddick to win a slam, let alone three.

17/23 non-clay Slam QFs between 2002 USO and 2010 AO is inconsistent now. 3 of the 6 misses occurred consecutively during Roddick's year of pushery (2005 USO - 2006 Cincinnati 1R).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He never defeated them but lost a hell lot of times against them while they were in their prime and so would Roddick. Difference here is Wawrinka had all three to deal with and all in all he fared way better, while Roddick for most years had “only” Federer to deal with. Even against Federer Stan has at least one slam win.
Really? Nadal wasn't much of a factor in 2014-2016 when Stan was winning slams and let's not compare 0lderer to the Fed Roddick had to deal with. Even against that version, Stan hasn't done great. One win over 2015-erer in BO5 on clay doesn't make him better than Roddick at dealing with Federer. No non-clay wins against 0ldered whatsoever for Stan. Not good.

Roddick also still had his prime years when Fedalovic were in the top 3, so how has Wawrinka had it tougher? Both had mostly one prime ATG to deal with during their years of contention overall. If you wanna argue Wawrinka had all of the Big 3, do the same for Roddick.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
3 Slams is kind of a tough barrier to break, and I can’t see Roddick winning AO 2014 or RG 2015. He definitely wins USO 2016.
Roddick's best only came at Wimb and at the USO. I don't think anyone considers him on equal footing with Stan at AO/FO.
 
Well he did not do his job also because Stan simply did not let him (plus the matchup). Stan did. way better against Djokovic than Roddick against Federer. To be honest I cannot see Roddick ever scoring four slam wins against any of the big three of they were remotely in there prime.

The counter argument is Wawrinka IS a bad match up for Djokovic (even if Djokovic fans deny this, stupid fools most of them are not realizing Djokovic looks even better admitting Wawrinka is a bad match up for him and Djokovic still has an overall 19-6 head to head as they point out ad nauseum, LMFAO!!), and Roddick is definitely not a bad match up for Federer.
 
Really? Nadal wasn't much of a factor in 2014-2016 when Stan was winning slams and let's not compare 0lderer to the Fed Roddick had to deal with. Even against that version, Stan hasn't done great. One win over 2015-erer in BO5 on clay doesn't make him better than Roddick at dealing with Federer. No non-clay wins against 0ldered whatsoever for Stan. Not good.

Roddick also still had his prime years when Fedalovic were in the top 3, so how has Wawrinka had it tougher? Both had mostly one prime ATG to deal with during their years of contention overall. If you wanna argue Wawrinka had all of the Big 3, do the same for Roddick.

I do think Stan fully earned his 2014 AO final win over Nadal, where Nadal was getting outplayed and faked an injured to try and devalue Stan's win (typical Fake-dal, you would think he had more career injuries than Del Potro if you believe his career long BS) but yeah agree on everything else you said.

In addition to the wins over an older Federer, Stan does also have a straight set win over Federer on clay in 2009 when Federer was clearly way more in his prime than Wawrinka. I do think it is fair to say Stan holds his own vs Federer on clay overall, but on faster courts he is pretty much useless.
 
D

Deleted member 772264

Guest
Both Roddick and Wawrinka played under the shadow of Federer.

Roddick merits consideration for his three finals at Wimbledon and his USO win as a 21 year-old. Having to contend with Federer and Nadal and the upcoming Djokovic and Murray at the time.

Wawrinka possesses one of the most devastating backhands on tour, he's won the Olympic gold medal in doubles with Federer, add to that the AO, RG and USO. Needless to say, he has got a better career thus far.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Both Roddick and Wawrinka played under the shadow of Federer.

Roddick merits consideration for his three finals at Wimbledon and his USO win as a 21 year-old. Having to contend with Federer and Nadal and the upcoming Djokovic and Murray at the time.

Wawrinka possesses one of the most devastating backhands on tour, he's won the Olympic gold medal in doubles with Federer, add to that the AO, RG and USO. Needless to say, he has got a better career thus far.
I'm fairly sure that won't change, sadly
 
Roddick's best only came at Wimb and at the USO. I don't think anyone considers him on equal footing with Stan at AO/FO.

Yes so the real question is if Roddick could or would manage 3 Wimbledon and U .S Opens today; since he is likely not winning the AO, and of course not in a trillion years winning RG. It is possible perhaps, even 4 is not impossible, but I don't think it is a safe bet by any means he wins 3 either.

Some people use the "Roddick would win 4 or 5 slams without Federer" which is probably true, as an argument to convince themselves he is a 4 or 5 slam winning player in any other era. That really does not work. It is the same as Federer and Djokovic both probably win about 5 RG titles without Djokovic but I would be willing to bet money there is still no era you transport Federer and Djokovic into that either wins 5 RG titles.

I think an even better hypothetical is to transport both to an entirely different time altogether. In all honesty I think there is probably a higher likelihood of Wawrinka somehow getting to 3 majors even in the 90s (not saying he does, it is all relative to Roddick) when you think that when playing well he is clearly better than Kafelnikov who got 2 majors, and has similar surface preferences to Wawrinka. Higher odds IMO than there is of Roddick getting 3 majors in the 90s which would be very hard for him on those faster courts, especialy with his return of serve. Not saying it would be easy for Wawrinka to get 3 majors in the 90s via Australian Open and Roland Garros, maybe a lucky U.S Open somewhere similar to today. Or that Roddick couldn't possibly somehow get 3 Wimbledon and U.S Opens in the 90s. Just that if forced to bet my life on one or the other I would pick Stan to succeed in that before Roddick. I don't think it needs to be explained Roddick would have a very hard time overcoming prime Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open, and even Agassi who is a terrible match up for him when Agassi is playing well. Not to mention the obstacles and challenges from Becker (still playing well up until 96), Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Edberg in the early 90s, Courier, Chang, and some others. Of course Wawrinka would have his numerous obstacles and roadblocks at his possible slams too.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Stan at AO vs Roddick at Wimby
Stan at RG vs Roddick at USO
Stan at USO vs Roddick at AO
Stan at Wimby vs Roddick at RG

Overall, I think it's a fairly close comparison in terms of level of play. Obviously matchups and circumstances can make quite a difference for non-ATG players.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes so the real question is if Roddick could or would manage 3 Wimbledon and U .S Opens today; since he is likely not winning the AO, and of course not in a trillion years winning RG. It is possible perhaps, even 4 is not impossible, but I don't think it is a safe bet by any means he wins 3 either.

Some people use the "Roddick would win 4 or 5 slams without Federer" which is probably true, as an argument to convince themselves he is a 4 or 5 slam winning player in any other era. That really does not work. It is the same as Federer and Djokovic both probably win about 5 RG titles without Djokovic but I would be willing to bet money there is still no era you transport Federer and Djokovic into that either wins 5 RG titles.

I think an even better hypothetical is to transport both to an entirely different time altogether. In all honesty I think there is probably a higher likelihood of Wawrinka somehow getting to 3 majors even in the 90s (not saying he does, it is all relative to Roddick) when you think that when playing well he is clearly better than Kafelnikov who got 2 majors, and has similar surface preferences to Wawrinka. Higher odds IMO than there is of Roddick getting 3 majors in the 90s which would be very hard for him on those faster courts, especialy with his return of serve. Not saying it would be easy for Wawrinka to get 3 majors in the 90s via Australian Open and Roland Garros, maybe a lucky U.S Open somewhere similar to today. Or that Roddick couldn't possibly somehow get 3 Wimbledon and U.S Opens in the 90s. Just that if forced to bet my life on one or the other I would pick Stan to succeed in that before Roddick. I don't think it needs to be explained Roddick would have a very hard time overcoming prime Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open, and even Agassi who is a terrible match up for him when Agassi is playing well. Not to mention the obstacles and challenges from Becker (still playing well up until 96), Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Edberg in the early 90s, Courier, Chang, and some others. Of course Wawrinka would have his numerous obstacles and roadblocks at his possible slams too.
I think 1 Wimby/1 USO for Roddick is a fair tally if he's a bit more lucky than he was in his career with opponents especially at Wimby. He could maybe tack on extra one of both in a bit weaker era or sneak out an AO, but all of that happening together would take a perfect alignment of the stars, so I'd say 3 would be reasonable in a weaker era. Now if you get to a total joke of an era like today, I think Roddick would be the consistent favorite at Wimby/USO when he was playing well, and could play with anyone at AO too, so he could win more than 3. But I have a really low opinion of the level of play today obviously and there's no point in talking about it, since it's such an extreme historical outlier. I think plenty of people could win more than 3 if they played today.

Roddick did take away some chances from himself in his prime with the 04 USO/07 Wimby matches as well as the lull that led to 06 Wimby, but in a 5 year span (03-07) that's not that bad.
 
Top