Wawrinka vs Roddick. Who is greater?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

Who is greater?


  • Total voters
    121

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I never like to say someone 'deserves' a title anywhere, but Roddick came extremely close to winning Wimbledon in 2009, and given his great grass court career in general, would have made a very worthy champion at SW19, had he won that match.
 

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.
Well, surely Djoker should have overcome a complicated match-up from a much lesser player than him.
 
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.

I agree with all of that.

I honestly think his career best scenario is peaking when he would have naturally peaked but not having the incredibly bad luck of facing Federer.

Some think he would have excelled more on the faster courts of earlier eras, but that is only partly true IMO. It would make his serve harder to return, and with his serve and forehand he would scary for anyone on a faster court at his peak. On the other hand though there were a lot of big servers back then and he would have a challenge returning and breaking them as well. And he isnt the kind of athlete people like Sampras, Edberg, or even Becker were. I think todays slower faster courts we have at Wimbledon, U.S Open, some years Australia are probably the best for him. If Federer does not wreck his confidence he does not fire Gilbert in 2004, and that probably changes a lot of his course.

If we are talking about today, well the courts have been slowed even more, probably too much for Roddick's best case scenario, especialy vs all time great baseliners, defenders, and grinders like Nadal and Djokovic. His all time best court speeds vs the field are probably the mid to late 2000s that should have been his prime.

I also think winning that 04 Wimbledon final would have been huge for Roddick's career. Oddly it might have even helped Federer long term if Roddick managed to gain a bit more confidence vs Federer and make it somewhat more a rivalry. Even with Federer clearly the more skilled player and always having an advantage regardless. It would make him better prepared and possibly tougher in some of his real challenges/rivalries to come like Nadal, trying to climb the mental mountain of beating Nadal on clay, and later Djokovic.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
nowhere.jpg
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

That's fair enough. Roddick may not win the HC slams Stan did if they switch places (no point talking about RG for Roddick, you'd have to switch out for a Wimbledon).

But that's my point. Wawrinka played incredibly well to win his slams don't get me wrong, but he was also far luckier than Roddick on the whole IMO. Hence why he ended up with 3 slams and Roddick just 1.

But I suppose some blame has to be placed on Roddick for not winning Wimby 09. I would honestly say Roddick with 2 slams is greater than Wawrinka with 3 if Roddick had won Wimby 09, but as it is Wawrinka is greater. He capitalized on all his chances while Roddick missed out on at least 1 maybe 2 if you count Wimby 2004.
 
That's fair enough. Roddick may not win the HC slams Stan did if they switch places (no point talking about RG for Roddick, you'd have to switch out for a Wimbledon).

But that's my point. Wawrinka played incredibly well to win his slams don't get me wrong, but he was also far luckier than Roddick on the whole IMO. Hence why he ended up with 3 slams and Roddick just 1.

But I suppose some blame has to be placed on Roddick for not winning Wimby 09. I would honestly say Roddick with 2 slams is greater than Wawrinka with 3 if Roddick had won Wimby 09, but as it is Wawrinka is greater. He capitalized on all his chances while Roddick missed out on at least 1 maybe 2 if you count Wimby 2004.

I would say Wawrinka missed a shot at Australia 2017. He certainly was in with a chance in the Federer semi but couldn't pull it out in the end, and isn't the final vs Nadal there 50/50 probably? That is literally the only possible chance he missed. Well maybe Australia 2015 too come to think of it.

I guess beating Federer-Nadal back to back, and Djokovic-Murray back to back, wouldn't be easy for him, even if he won the semi both times, so maybe that is a stretch. He didn't miss any big opportunities in finals, that is for sure.
 
That's fair enough. Roddick may not win the HC slams Stan did if they switch places (no point talking about RG for Roddick, you'd have to switch out for a Wimbledon).

But that's my point. Wawrinka played incredibly well to win his slams don't get me wrong, but he was also far luckier than Roddick on the whole IMO. Hence why he ended up with 3 slams and Roddick just 1.

But I suppose some blame has to be placed on Roddick for not winning Wimby 09. I would honestly say Roddick with 2 slams is greater than Wawrinka with 3 if Roddick had won Wimby 09, but as it is Wawrinka is greater. He capitalized on all his chances while Roddick missed out on at least 1 maybe 2 if you count Wimby 2004.

It is hard to know for sure, but I would give Roddick a decent shot of atleast a couple Wimbledons if he were in his prime today. Not easy, but very plausible.

Hard court slams would be harder IMO. Mainly since the tour has slowed the hard courts down further (IMO the whole Big 3 agenda) which would heavily favor Nadal and Djokovic over him, would help someone like Thiem and others against him, and would favor Federer (even an older one) vs him than courts with some more speed. He would probably need a draw he only needs 1 big win (meaning any of the Big 3 and possibly Murray) as opposed to 2 or 3 to win a hard court slam. Wawrinka likes slower courts, so by contrast this only helps him. A scenario of him somehow getting 3 or more majors today would be more likely 2 or 3 Wimbledons and if all goes well maybe a hard court slam at some point than vice versa IMHO.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Greater is an easy question IMO. It's Wawrinka. But I don't think he's much better, if at all. 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.

In hindsight, the Wimby 09 Final loss hurts Roddick a lot here. With a 2 slam gap it's basically impossible for Roddick to win the greatness stakes, but a second slam and a win over Federer on grass and still pretty much in his prime on top of it would've tipped the scales quite a lot.
Pretty much this. Roddick obviously has the better career away from slams (more masters, #1 stats, titles won, etc.) but ranking someone with 1 slam over someone with 3 slams is not something I could ever do.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That's fair enough. Roddick may not win the HC slams Stan did if they switch places (no point talking about RG for Roddick, you'd have to switch out for a Wimbledon).

But that's my point. Wawrinka played incredibly well to win his slams don't get me wrong, but he was also far luckier than Roddick on the whole IMO. Hence why he ended up with 3 slams and Roddick just 1.

But I suppose some blame has to be placed on Roddick for not winning Wimby 09. I would honestly say Roddick with 2 slams is greater than Wawrinka with 3 if Roddick had won Wimby 09, but as it is Wawrinka is greater. He capitalized on all his chances while Roddick missed out on at least 1 maybe 2 if you count Wimby 2004.
Bolded: Not even USO 2016?
 

Fabresque

Legend
Wawrinka would literally be useless had it not been for the slam wins. He’d probably be World no. 6-7 tops, with a lone masters title. He’d be seen as a **** Berdych/Tsonga. His slams just glorify his ability to destroy everyone with one good run of form.

Roddick on the other hand stayed relevant and reached 5 slam finals (won one) in an era where Federer was literally unbeatable, was year end world number 1, and won plenty of titles. Take away Roddick’s one slam and I don’t think he falls as badly as Stan would. So I’d give it to Roddick
 
Bolded: Not even USO 2016?

It isn't 100% certain. It is not like a draw of Del Potro, hot Nishikori who had just beaten a peak Murray, and Djokovic (who wasn't playing badly at all this event despite his crazy all time easy draw), is an easy overall draw by a long ways. Djokovic is the one who had the super easy draw, not Wawrinka. Roddick 2003 most likely wins 2016 U.S Open, even if he was a point from losing in straight sets to Nalbandian in the semis. Other years? Well not every year from 2004-2009 atleast (his other prime years), it all depends on timing.

Knowing Roddick he's probably make an account himself to vote Wawrinka.

;)
 

The Guru

Legend
I'm going to surprise some people here and call them even. Roddick was better outside of slams I don't think there's much argument for Wawrinka there and in slams Wawrinka's got the higher peak but Roddick holds his own and has a similar amount of strong runs. While I don't think Roddick was capable of the same heights as Wawrinka the gap he creates outside of slams is enough to call these two more or less even.
 

Fridge

Professional
The poll clearly shows that Wawa>Roddick. I wonder how this can be applied to era comparisons???
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
If Roddick had won Wimbledon 2009, we would not have this discussion, unfortunately it was not.
The difference of 2 Majors is great, of course that in the other sections the American clearly triumphs.
If we look at the results of both at a general level, there are many differences, making it difficult to establish a clear winner.
Hence, for me they are at a similar level of greatness although the results obtained in the Grand Slam tournaments by Wawrinka could tip the balance in his favor a bit.
8-B
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's not a guarantee if that's what your asking. Stan still deserves some credit for beating Djokovic in slams when he did. It's not easy to do even when Djokovic is a bit below his best. Roddick could do it at USO 2016 if he was his young self for sure, but he'd have to play pretty well, as Stan did.
Well obviously. Roddick would need to be at his best or close to it and Djokovic below his.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It isn't 100% certain. It is not like a draw of Del Potro, hot Nishikori who had just beaten a peak Murray, and Djokovic (who wasn't playing badly at all this event despite his crazy all time easy draw), is an easy overall draw by a long ways. Djokovic is the one who had the super easy draw, not Wawrinka. Roddick 2003 most likely wins 2016 U.S Open, even if he was a point from losing in straight sets to Nalbandian in the semis. Other years? Well not every year from 2004-2009 atleast (his other prime years), it all depends on timing.



;)
2003 and 2007 are the years I could see it happening for Roddick at the USO. Even 2006 would have a small chance.
 
Knowing Roddick he's probably make an account himself to vote Wawrinka.

;)
2003 and 2007 are the years I could see it happening for Roddick at the USO. Even 2006 would have a small chance.

Agreed with those. Would add 2004 to the possible chances. He was actually playing well that year, he literally ran into an on fire Johansson who played the match of his life, and via the match stats he still was unlucky to lose. I think it is fairly likely he would have beaten Hewitt in the semis, despite his record vs Hewitt not being great, and played (almost certainly lost to) Federer in the final.

2007 is hard to judge completely since he did play a great quarter final vs Federer, but it is hard to say if he maintains that form in the semis and finals or not. I am not convinced of that, especialy the ok but kind of average year he had that year. I think he got up for Fed since he really wanted to try for a win over Federer again.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It isn't 100% certain. It is not like a draw of Del Potro, hot Nishikori who had just beaten a peak Murray, and Djokovic (who wasn't playing badly at all this event despite his crazy all time easy draw), is an easy overall draw by a long ways. Djokovic is the one who had the super easy draw, not Wawrinka. Roddick 2003 most likely wins 2016 U.S Open, even if he was a point from losing in straight sets to Nalbandian in the semis. Other years? Well not every year from 2004-2009 atleast (his other prime years), it all depends on timing.



;)
And besides, Delpo in 2016 certainly wasn't back to his best yet and Nishikori was no better than Ferrero.
 

ConnorH

Rookie
A very close call between these two. In slams:
Wawrinka has 3 Ws, 1 F, 4 Ss, and 9 Qs
Roddick has 1 W, 3 Fs, 4 Ss, and 9 Qs
So the only difference is 3:1 or 1:3 in finals, or two matches. Otherwise they are exactly the same.

Roddick is much better in almost all other categories. I think most people will rank Wawrinka higher. But I am not valuing those two matches above their entire careers. Roddick win almost 100 more matches in his career, and lose almost 100 less matches.
 
And besides, Delpo in 2016 certainly wasn't back to his best yet and Nishikori was no better than Ferrero.

IMO Nishikori was much better at the 2016 U.S Open than Ferrero was in the final vs Roddick. He was fatigued, had played something like 23 sets in 5 days or some crazy stat, and pretty weak in that final, and Roddick is a horrendous match up for him anyway. I don't think Ferrero beats Murray at the 2016 U.S Open as Nishikori did, and he sure as heck doesn't with his finals level.

The reason I mention all the tough opponents though is in 3 rounds you probably will have matches you don't play as well as others, it is hard to maintain your top for all 3 rounds, and looking at Roddick's slam history it isn't neccesarily common for him. Like for instance Roddick was not playing nearly as well in the semis when he would have played Nishikori as he did in the final vs Ferrero. Anyway I still agree Roddick U.S Open 2003, and possibly some others, probably wins the 2016 U.S Open.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
IMO Nishikori was much better at the 2016 U.S Open than Ferrero was in the final vs Roddick. He was fatigued, had played something like 23 sets in 5 days or some crazy stat, and pretty weak in that final, and Roddick is a horrendous match up for him anyway. I don't think Ferrero beats Murray at the 2016 U.S Open as Nishikori did, and he sure as heck doesn't with his finals level.

The reason I mention all the tough opponents though is in 3 rounds you probably will have matches you don't play as well as others, it is hard to maintain your top for all 3 rounds, and looking at Roddick's slam history it isn't neccesarily common for him. Like for instance Roddick was not playing nearly as well in the semis when he would have played Nishikori as he did in the final vs Ferrero. Anyway I still agree Roddick U.S Open 2003, and possibly some others, probably wins the 2016 U.S Open.
Ferrero beat Hewitt and Agassi, I think he could have similarly beaten Murray. I also think Nalbandian was similar to and maybe even better than that version of Djokovic. Djokovic was ugly after the first set, truly awful serving, mostly grinding off the ground. I don't think that version of Stan was on par with the 13/14 AO or 15 RG versions, he was just more solid and mentally kept it together better in the final. Nalbandian played 4 pretty good sets there in the semi (very good in the first 3, ok in the 5th although he was wearing down a bit).

Ferrero also played pretty well in sets 2 and 3, Roddick was spectacular and totally shut him down. Stan may have very well given him a set like he did Nishikori. Delpo was still sort of on his comeback road and had little left after the first two sets. He was good in the first two, but hard to rate him as a truly dangerous opponent given that, just like the next year vs Nadal.

Roddick also played Henman and Lube in the first two rounds, not quite as good as Delpo, but still counts for something.
 
Ferrero beat Hewitt and Agassi, I think he could have similarly beaten Murray. I also think Nalbandian was similar to and maybe even better than that version of Djokovic. Djokovic was ugly after the first set, truly awful serving, mostly grinding off the ground. I don't think that version of Stan was on par with the 13/14 AO or 15 RG versions, he was just more solid and mentally kept it together better in the final. Nalbandian played 4 pretty good sets there in the semi (very good in the first 3, ok in the 5th although he was wearing down a bit).

Ferrero also played pretty well in sets 2 and 3, Roddick was spectacular and totally shut him down. Stan may have very well given him a set like he did Nishikori. Delpo was still sort of on his comeback road and had little left after the first two sets. He was good in the first two, but hard to rate him as a truly dangerous opponent given that, just like the next year vs Nadal.

Roddick also played Henman and Lube in the first two rounds, not quite as good as Delpo, but still counts for something.

I think playing level wise yes Nalbandian was probably atleast as good as this version of Djokovic. There is one big difference though. Djokovic won't choke, nor will he give up once he has a dissapointment. Roddick can beat him but he will have to earn the win fully. Nalbandian was a point away from a straight sets win remember.

2016 was Murray's career year. I think taking him out this year is big and not a small feat at all. It is easily the 2nd biggest win of Nishikori's whole career, after the U.S Open win over Djokovic, maybe it was even better in a way since Djokovic was so bad at that tournament and that match. I also don't think Murray was in bad form at the Open, even if it wasn't his best. I was amazed Nishikori beat him. I think the only round Ferrero played well enough to possibly beat Murray was the semi final vs Agassi. Definitely not the final vs Roddick. Not the quarter final vs Hewitt either really.

I also have agreed the 2003 U.S Open Roddick probably does win the 2016 U.S Open replacing Wawrinka, and some other US Open Roddicks possibly wins the 2016 U.S Open as well.

My main point though was Wawrinka did not have some cakewalk draw to the title. Not saying Roddick did either just because he didn't play Fed or Agassi, but there seems to be a perception by some Wawrinka did. Djokovic was the one who had the cakewalk draw before losing in the final, not Wawrinka. Wawrinka still went through a pretty good last 3 rounds to win.
 

big ted

Legend
warwinka beat players in his 3 GS titles that roddick never would have beaten... and epic matches too...
in roddicks USO run he only had to get thru players like Nalbandian and jc Ferrero...
id choose warwinka!
 

Vanilla Slice

Professional
I’ll go Stan but BARELY ... only cause of the quality 3 to 1 Slam comparison.

Give Roddick one Wimbledon and id go with him ... anyone who knows me on here knows that 2009 loss just hits different
 
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
Man, I am so sorry Roddick fans. My intentions were pure.
 

Roddickulous1

Semi-Pro
I'm not terribly familiar with Wawrinka's prime (didn't watch tennis from 12-17) but I will say he strikes me as someone who seized opportunities given to him much more so than Roddick did.

Roddick, due to whatever reason (poor clutch play or lack of confidence/self belief or mental block causing him to tighten up), very rarely seized opportunities given to him in big moments/matches/tournaments. I can only think of 3 GS tournaments in his career in his career where I'd call him kinda clutch and opportunistic and those are 03 AO/USO and 09 Wimbly. And of course even there, he clowned the first set vs Nalby (had 6 BPs in one game that he couldn't convert; made UEs on most of them) and the second set TB vs Fed.

Some other chances he blew in GS matches include (I won't bother mentioning his pathetic out of form losses):

- 03 Wimbly SF first set. Had SP and netted a routine inside-out FH. Now, there's no guarantee Roddick even wins the point, but I'd favor him to do so as Roddick in 03 was generally successful with going to Fed's BH with his I/O FH (gaining control of the rally or potentially forcing an error). Had he won the first set, again, given the level Fed displayed (arguably his GOAT grass match), he would've won in 4 sets but Roddick would've had more confidence after winning the opening set and likely puts up a more respectable performance.

- 04 AO QF. Minor one but Roddick had played an excellent return game to force 2 BPs when Safin was serving for the match. On the second BP, Roddick netted a simple FH return on an absolute sitter of a Safin second serve. Again, no guarantee Roddick even wins the point had the return landed in and not sure if beats Safin either. Either way, this one could be considered irrelevant as Roddick had no shot of winning this tournament.

- 04 Wimbly F. Dip early in the second set, blew/failed to convert on some BPs in the 4th set (made UEs). Golden opportunity.

- 04 USO QF. Won 24 more points overall but blew some big BPs and was clearly tight serving to stay in the match at the end. Made a DF in each of the three games he got broken in. Not really a winnable tournament but a horrific loss, especially as this was the loss that made him start making changes to his game.

- 05 AO SF. 2 consecutive DFs when up a break in the third set to get broken back. He had no business losing this set. Had he gone up two sets to one, he's in the driver's seat. I have a lot of respect for Hewitt's run so I certainly wouldn't count him out down 2-1. But I give Roddick a 60 percent chance of winning the match at that point. And little chance Roddick ever melts down after a two sets to one lead like he actually ended up doing in the fourth set. And in the potential final, Roddick actually matched up quite well with Safin. Straight setted him at 04 TMC and beat him on a fast indoor court at Bangkok in fall 04. These two wins were during the best run of Safin's career and Safin was a far superior indoor player to Roddick too. I don't mind favoring Safin in a potential final but Roddick would've absolutely had a shot. So again, this was a good chance with Federer out that he kinda blew.

- 07 Wimbly QF. Up two sets and a break to Gasquet and blew it. Not a winnable tournament but a pathetic meltdown.

- 08 USO QF. Served for the fourth set, made 2 consecutive DFs. Made a dumb decision to drop shot at 5 all in the TB when he was dictating the rally. Again, it's debatable if he would've even won the 5th set but my point at large is to show him failing to seize opportunities due to his own doing.

- 09 Wimbly F. Second set TB. No guarantee he wins the match up two sets to zero (same guy who blew two sets and a break lead to Gasquet in his prime) but he would've put himself in a much more commanding position.

Again, most of these instances, there's no guarantee Roddick would've gone on to win the point/set/match/tournament. But my point on a larger scale is that Roddick rarely capitalized on opportunities presented to him and often tightened up or made bad decisions or errors in such moments that led to his downfall. Not sure if same could be said about Wawrinka.
 
I'm not terribly familiar with Wawrinka's prime (didn't watch tennis from 12-17) but I will say he strikes me as someone who seized opportunities given to him much more so than Roddick did.

Roddick, due to whatever reason (poor clutch play or lack of confidence/self belief or mental block causing him to tighten up), very rarely seized opportunities given to him in big moments/matches/tournaments. I can only think of 3 GS tournaments in his career in his career where I'd call him kinda clutch and opportunistic and those are 03 AO/USO and 09 Wimbly. And of course even there, he clowned the first set vs Nalby (had 6 BPs in one game that he couldn't convert; made UEs on most of them) and the second set TB vs Fed.

Some other chances he blew in GS matches include (I won't bother mentioning his pathetic out of form losses):

- 03 Wimbly SF first set. Had SP and netted a routine inside-out FH. Now, there's no guarantee Roddick even wins the point, but I'd favor him to do so as Roddick in 03 was generally successful with going to Fed's BH with his I/O FH (gaining control of the rally or potentially forcing an error). Had he won the first set, again, given the level Fed displayed (arguably his GOAT grass match), he would've won in 4 sets but Roddick would've had more confidence after winning the opening set and likely puts up a more respectable performance.

- 04 AO QF. Minor one but Roddick had played an excellent return game to force 2 BPs when Safin was serving for the match. On the second BP, Roddick netted a simple FH return on an absolute sitter of a Safin second serve. Again, no guarantee Roddick even wins the point had the return landed in and not sure if beats Safin either. Either way, this one could be considered irrelevant as Roddick had no shot of winning this tournament.

- 04 Wimbly F. Dip early in the second set, blew/failed to convert on some BPs in the 4th set (made UEs). Golden opportunity.

- 04 USO QF. Won 24 more points overall but blew some big BPs and was clearly tight serving to stay in the match at the end. Made a DF in each of the three games he got broken in. Not really a winnable tournament but a horrific loss, especially as this was the loss that made him start making changes to his game.

- 05 AO SF. 2 consecutive DFs when up a break in the third set to get broken back. He had no business losing this set. Had he gone up two sets to one, he's in the driver's seat. I have a lot of respect for Hewitt's run so I certainly wouldn't count him out down 2-1. But I give Roddick a 60 percent chance of winning the match at that point. And little chance Roddick ever melts down after a two sets to one lead like he actually ended up doing in the fourth set. And in the potential final, Roddick actually matched up quite well with Safin. Straight setted him at 04 TMC and beat him on a fast indoor court at Bangkok in fall 04. These two wins were during the best run of Safin's career and Safin was a far superior indoor player to Roddick too. I don't mind favoring Safin in a potential final but Roddick would've absolutely had a shot. So again, this was a good chance with Federer out that he kinda blew.

- 07 Wimbly QF. Up two sets and a break to Gasquet and blew it. Not a winnable tournament but a pathetic meltdown.

- 08 USO QF. Served for the fourth set, made 2 consecutive DFs. Made a dumb decision to drop shot at 5 all in the TB when he was dictating the rally. Again, it's debatable if he would've even won the 5th set but my point at large is to show him failing to seize opportunities due to his own doing.

- 09 Wimbly F. Second set TB. No guarantee he wins the match up two sets to zero (same guy who blew two sets and a break lead to Gasquet in his prime) but he would've put himself in a much more commanding position.

Again, most of these instances, there's no guarantee Roddick would've gone on to win the point/set/match/tournament. But my point on a larger scale is that Roddick rarely capitalized on opportunities presented to him and often tightened up or made bad decisions or errors in such moments that led to his downfall. Not sure if same could be said about Wawrinka.

ITA on all of that.

I can hardly think of any times Wawrinka didn't close out a winnable match or blew it. 2017 AO semis vs Fed he played the big points poorly in the 5th set but that is not the same thing at all as some of those you mentioned. And he is very unlikely to beat Nadal in the final even if he beats Federer in the semis anyway. 2013 Australian Open vs Djokovic maybe a bit, but again he is probably never winning this tournament. 2013 U.S Open vs Djokovic is probably his biggest time for this situation, but again he very likely loses to Nadal in the final anyway. The most costly time was probably the 2015 Australian Open since he might have won that tournament, but while he missed a great shot of winning the match vs a not great Djokovic (Wawrinka himself wasn't playing that well ever in this match though) he was never truly ahead either.

2010 U.S Open quarters vs Youzhny too come to think of it. I remember this match and he blews lots of opportunities in it, but Nadal destroys him here in the semis I bet.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I'm not terribly familiar with Wawrinka's prime (didn't watch tennis from 12-17) but I will say he strikes me as someone who seized opportunities given to him much more so than Roddick did.

Roddick, due to whatever reason (poor clutch play or lack of confidence/self belief or mental block causing him to tighten up), very rarely seized opportunities given to him in big moments/matches/tournaments. I can only think of 3 GS tournaments in his career in his career where I'd call him kinda clutch and opportunistic and those are 03 AO/USO and 09 Wimbly. And of course even there, he clowned the first set vs Nalby (had 6 BPs in one game that he couldn't convert; made UEs on most of them) and the second set TB vs Fed.

Some other chances he blew in GS matches include (I won't bother mentioning his pathetic out of form losses):

- 03 Wimbly SF first set. Had SP and netted a routine inside-out FH. Now, there's no guarantee Roddick even wins the point, but I'd favor him to do so as Roddick in 03 was generally successful with going to Fed's BH with his I/O FH (gaining control of the rally or potentially forcing an error). Had he won the first set, again, given the level Fed displayed (arguably his GOAT grass match), he would've won in 4 sets but Roddick would've had more confidence after winning the opening set and likely puts up a more respectable performance.

- 04 AO QF. Minor one but Roddick had played an excellent return game to force 2 BPs when Safin was serving for the match. On the second BP, Roddick netted a simple FH return on an absolute sitter of a Safin second serve. Again, no guarantee Roddick even wins the point had the return landed in and not sure if beats Safin either. Either way, this one could be considered irrelevant as Roddick had no shot of winning this tournament.

- 04 Wimbly F. Dip early in the second set, blew/failed to convert on some BPs in the 4th set (made UEs). Golden opportunity.

- 04 USO QF. Won 24 more points overall but blew some big BPs and was clearly tight serving to stay in the match at the end. Made a DF in each of the three games he got broken in. Not really a winnable tournament but a horrific loss, especially as this was the loss that made him start making changes to his game.

- 05 AO SF. 2 consecutive DFs when up a break in the third set to get broken back. He had no business losing this set. Had he gone up two sets to one, he's in the driver's seat. I have a lot of respect for Hewitt's run so I certainly wouldn't count him out down 2-1. But I give Roddick a 60 percent chance of winning the match at that point. And little chance Roddick ever melts down after a two sets to one lead like he actually ended up doing in the fourth set. And in the potential final, Roddick actually matched up quite well with Safin. Straight setted him at 04 TMC and beat him on a fast indoor court at Bangkok in fall 04. These two wins were during the best run of Safin's career and Safin was a far superior indoor player to Roddick too. I don't mind favoring Safin in a potential final but Roddick would've absolutely had a shot. So again, this was a good chance with Federer out that he kinda blew.

- 07 Wimbly QF. Up two sets and a break to Gasquet and blew it. Not a winnable tournament but a pathetic meltdown.

- 08 USO QF. Served for the fourth set, made 2 consecutive DFs. Made a dumb decision to drop shot at 5 all in the TB when he was dictating the rally. Again, it's debatable if he would've even won the 5th set but my point at large is to show him failing to seize opportunities due to his own doing.

- 09 Wimbly F. Second set TB. No guarantee he wins the match up two sets to zero (same guy who blew two sets and a break lead to Gasquet in his prime) but he would've put himself in a much more commanding position.

Again, most of these instances, there's no guarantee Roddick would've gone on to win the point/set/match/tournament. But my point on a larger scale is that Roddick rarely capitalized on opportunities presented to him and often tightened up or made bad decisions or errors in such moments that led to his downfall. Not sure if same could be said about Wawrinka.
Damm 2012 was maybe the best year you missed out on that one big time.
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
roddick comes off as a nice, kind and genuine guy and his game reflected just that, not damaging at all when it really mattered.........he was nowhere near as mean as stan to take care of vulturing frauds in big stages or slam finals.........
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't put much value on Djokovic in this matchup since Wawrinka went through him for every slam he has won. It's easy to say the word "Djokovic" to cover things.

So because Stan beat Djok en route to his titles, Djok is not worth valuing as an opponent? Ok
 
So because Stan beat Djok en route to his titles, Djok is not worth valuing as an opponent? Ok

I agree with you. You can't really devalue beating one of the GOATs in his prime for all your slam.s

Still I guess the point is Wawrinka is lucky to have a great who is a good match up for him, and who he is able to beat in big matches. Roddick didn't have that situation. He kept playing Federer in big matches who is both much better than him, and not a good match up for him at all.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has value just because of who he is. It can't be denied though that Wawrinka without a matchup advantage over Djokovic is most likely slamless.

Djok is likely the GOAT so we downgrade him based on matchup?

Do we downgrade Rafa’s wins over Fed from 2008-14 because it was a bad matchup for Fed? No, we give Rafa credit for beating a GOAT and doing it on all surfaces. We should do similar for Stan.
 

upchuck

Hall of Fame
He had Federer in trouble in 2 finals at Wim. And Wawrinka peak level gets rated too high. Wawrinka is better at AO and RG with Roddick better at Wim/USO.
Wawrinka at his peak had a combination of forehands and backhands that no version of Roddick could match. Wawrinka in the finals of the 2015 French Open? One of the all-time great one off performances.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Wawrinka at his peak had a combination of forehands and backhands that no version of Roddick could match. Wawrinka in the finals of the 2015 French Open? One of the all-time great one off performances.
Roddick can match the FH but not the BH. Roddick has the serve. I think Djokovic of the RG 15 final was a bit passive though combined with Stans level not helping.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Djok is likely the GOAT so we downgrade him based on matchup?

Do we downgrade Rafa’s wins over Fed from 2008-14 because it was a bad matchup for Fed? No, we give Rafa credit for beating a GOAT and doing it on all surfaces. We should do similar for Stan.

Of course?
 
Djokovic has value just because of who he is. It can't be denied though that Wawrinka without a matchup advantage over Djokovic is most likely slamless.

And given that Roddick has a good record vs Djokovic (not prime Djokovic but still) who knows, he might be able to pull off something similar if Djokovic is his main rival instead of Federer.
 
Top