Wawrinka vs Roddick. Who is greater?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date Start date

Who is greater?

  • Total voters
    188
It's like people want to asterisk Wawrinka's slam victories because oh MaTcHUp sTreNGth aGaINsT Djokovic. Dude. Djokovic is someone who regularly beats Federer and Nadal in majors. More than any player of the era, no one has sustained a period of toppling him. That Wawrinka could penetrate his defences and leave him without answers is the story in itself, not something that should be discounted in a larger discussion.

Stan succeeded against Djokovic because he could sustain periods of massive amounts of powerful shots on both the forehand and backhand like no one else of the era could. Andy Roddick couldn't do that. And if he can't do that, he can't win against him*.

*2016 US Open was a weird one for Djokovic, as we all know. He had no business making the finals in the first place.
 
Rosstour said:
I’m a Fedfan and a Rafa hater but even I won’t do that. Rafa had Fed’s number for a while and cost him 4-5 Slams at minimum. No shame in that.
Click to expand...

I agree in general, but I think it detracts from Rafa on clay a bit his biggest rival for a long time was someone who a)is not even a super great clay courter, probably top 10 in the Open Era barely (Fed), b)is his easiest match up when both were in their primes (ironically now both past their prime Fed is a terrible match up for Nadal, except on clay). Then Djokovic becoming his biggest clay court rival #A applies to him too, but not #B.

Nadal has just so far dwarfed Borg's clay achievements and everyone elses it doesn't even matter anymore though. Undisputed clay GOAT even with probably the worst clay field ever with literally no depth and no specialists at all, and easy people as his biggest rival(s) all things considered. I do still think it makes his herculian clay feats a bit less impressive still though. Compare that to Evert who had Court (a 5 time RG winner) and Navratilova to overcome on clay and still went undefeated for 8 years at one point.
 
flutzingitaway said:
I agree in general, but I think it detracts from Rafa on clay a bit his biggest rival for a long time was someone who a)is not even a super great clay courter, probably top 10 in the Open Era barely (Fed), b)is his easiest match up when both were in their primes (ironically now both past their prime Fed is a terrible match up for Nadal, except on clay). Then Djokovic becoming his biggest clay court rival #A applies to him too, but not #B.

Nadal has just so far dwarfed Borg's clay achievements and everyone elses it doesn't even matter anymore though. Undisputed clay GOAT even with probably the worst clay field ever with literally no depth and no specialists at all, and easy people as his biggest rival(s) all things considered. I do still think it makes his herculian clay feats a bit less impressive still though. Compare that to Evert who had Court (a 5 time RG winner) and Navratilova to overcome on clay and still went undefeated for 8 years at one point.
Click to expand...

I agree, there was no Kuerten or Muster around Rafa’s age to challenge him consistently.

However, Federer is or was until recently the second-winningest player on clay, ever. So despite going down to Rafa so many times, he has won more clay matches than anyone else. Despite not being naturally inclined to the surface.

It is a pity that Rafa came along when he did, otherwise Fed’s resume would just be eye-popping. 4-5 RG titles at least to go along with 5 or more at all the other Slams.
 
when we're talking about Wawrinka vs Novak h2h we'll say slam is what counts
Fed vs Novak we'll say Fed's 20 is superior so why is this a discussion? should be wawrinka hands down,
very confused community
 
Wawa with the 3 Slams and he is a far more balanced player with much better movement. Roddick was a first serve with a big forehand (the FH lost a lot of its potency after age 25) and his defensive movement was average at best. To his credit, his movement is still better than almost every American that came after him.
 
Nadal_Django said:
Hmm, on one side you have one of the most useless players in the history, the serve and push kamikaze approach choker, and on the other side you have the CYGS disrupter, Germanic hero who managed to prevail over the tennis Goliath, the Stanimal himself. What a dilemma! o_O
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure Stan is worthy of being the subject of a Wagner opera, but uhhm, otherwise, pretty much - yup.
wangs78 said:
Wawa with the 3 Slams and he is a far more balanced player with much better movement. Roddick was a first serve with a big forehand (the FH lost a lot of its potency after age 25) and his defensive movement was average at best. To his credit, his movement is still better than almost every American that came after him.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Roddick is the prototype modern American player. Big Serve, hit hard, brainless tennis - oh look, I lost. What a shock. I haven't rooted for any American male tennis (singles) players post-Andre, and this is why. They have won exactly as much as they deserve to have won. The only reason Roddick won anything is his big serve, and even with that, he had exactly as much success as he deserved. I guess if he had won Wimbledon 09, that would have been fine, but frankly, if you play 5 sets and are only broken once and still lose, maybe it's not just bad luck, but an inability to much else but hold serve - or really win points from anything besides your serve. 2009 Fed was still Fed, but not infallible. Roddick ranks on slam wins with guys like Del Potro and Gerulaitis, and that's about right. Roddick is a modern day Roscoe Tanner, but Tanner frankly had a better net game and the serve is pretty close.

Wawrinka might not have a much outside of slams for a brief run, but he made the most of it. Is there any aspect of Roddick's game that Stan was not better at, aside from the serve (Stan's is pretty good, though)? No. Stan's not an ATG - (and sure, Murray has accomplished more than Stan) but his skills and slam accomplishments make this not that close, in my opinion.

This poll and thread is hilarious.
 
Rosstour said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's nothing at this point that makes Djokovic the goat. There's still work to do.

Moving on now, Wawrinka is pretty unique here in that he has this way of beating Djokovic, but usually more times than not goes down to any of the big 4. Especially off clay. Plus there are plenty of other players he is/was vulnerable to. It was never a regular thing from slam to slam to have Wawrinka as one of the front running favorites. Just look at this stat.

Career win %

Roddick 74.2%
Wawrinka 63.5%

That's a huge gap my friend.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Overall, Roddick was a slightly better player imo over his career. My view won't change. I'm a fan of Wawrinka too. Love the guy. Just the way I see it. He was unlucky and Wawrinka was the opposite in being lucky with their matchups in slam finals. I don't believe that two matches vs Djokovic should decide the fate of this debate so easily. Roddick gets crapped on left and right here while Wawrinka is praised and it's not fair for Andy. He won twice as many titles as Wawrinka in his career. That's how I see it. Good day to ya.
 
PeoplesChamp said:
There's nothing at this point that makes Djokovic the goat. There's still work to do.

Moving on now, Wawrinka is pretty unique here in that he has this way of beating Djokovic, but usually more times than not goes down to any of the big 4. Especially off clay. Plus there are plenty of other players he is/was vulnerable to. It was never a regular thing from slam to slam to have Wawrinka as one of the front running favorites. Just look at this stat.

Career win %

Roddick 74.2%
Wawrinka 63.5%

That's a huge gap my friend.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Overall, Roddick was a slightly better player imo over his career. My view won't change. I'm a fan of Wawrinka too. Love the guy. Just the way I see it. He was unlucky and Wawrinka was the opposite in being lucky with their matchups in slam finals. I don't believe that two matches vs Djokovic should decide the fate of this debate so easily. Roddick gets crapped on left and right here while Wawrinka is praised and it's not fair for Andy. He won twice as many titles as Wawrinka in his career. That's how I see it. Good day to ya.
Click to expand...

I didn’t even take a position on Wawa vs Roddick lol. I just don’t agree with de-weighting Wawa’s wins against Djok just because he beat him a bunch of times. That’s good on Stan, not a demerit.

I’ll also give him credit for longevity, Roddick retired at 30 ranked 39th, Stan is a top-20 player at 35.

As far as Djok being the GOAT, I will always consider Fed the greatest but most have moved on to one of the other two by this point so I just put it out there so no one thinks I’m trying to slide the discussion for Fed.
 
Rosstour said:
I didn’t even take a position on Wawa vs Roddick lol. I just don’t agree with de-weighting Wawa’s wins against Djok just because he beat him a bunch of times. That’s good on Stan, not a demerit.

I’ll also give him credit for longevity, Roddick retired at 30 ranked 39th, Stan is a top-20 player at 35.

As far as Djok being the GOAT, I will always consider Fed the greatest but most have moved on to one of the other two by this point so I just put it out there so no one thinks I’m trying to slide the discussion for Fed.
Click to expand...

IMO Federer is still the greatest for now, atleast until Nadal reaches 21 or Djokovic 20 (Nadal needs to be outright ahead since he is weaker in most other areas). Will he wind up there? Maybe not, but for the moment he still is.

Greatest is different from best. Best is very subjective, I am sure most (not all but most) the fans of all 3 will consider theirs the best no matter what.
 
Yeah. Most people will consider Nadal the GOAT as soon as he hits 20, and many already do simply because of H2H.

For me, Fed will always be the greatest, regardless of Slam count. But I’ll wait to crown the Statistical GOAT until they all retire.
 
RS said:
Damm 2012 was maybe the best year you missed out on that one big time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, lost interest in tennis with Roddick being washed up and some other stuff happening in life. I've caught up on the Nadal/Novak AO, Fed/Murray Wimbly and Fed/Novak Wimbly matches from 12 so far. Still have a lot of catching up to do tho. But, I'll be honest, I tend to watch/rewatch matches from 00s much more so than 10s. Not sure if it's nostalgia or whatever, just find myself more emotionally invested there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
flutzingitaway said:
;)


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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree with you on 04. I'll even say that 04 USO Roddick would handily beat 06 USO Roddick 9 times out of 10. That JJ loss was a huge aberration.

For 07, fair point to bring up. I will say he had a very convincing win over Thomas Johansson in the 3R playing his big hitter game so he showed signs of great, aggressive tennis even before the Fed match. The USO 3R/QF were probably the two best matches he played that year. Don't think he looked that great in the other matches pre-QF.
 
Give one more Slam to Wawrinka and he is clearly ahead of Roddick. Give one more Slam to Roddick and he is clearly ahead of Wawrinka.

They are more or less even right now.
 
Nole Slam said:
Give one more Slam to Wawrinka and he is clearly ahead of Roddick. Give one more Slam to Roddick and he is clearly ahead of Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
You could say that about a bunch of players. Meaningless.

Roddick - overrated
Wawrinka - correctly rated

Roddick had opportunities to win slams in 2003-2005 when there wasn't a bunch of dominant players. He managed one. He could have been one of those dominant players, but frankly, he wasn't good enough. Sure, he lost to Roger a few times, but he also lost to Rainer Schuttler, Safin, Joachim Johansson, Hewitt, and Muller at AO, Wimbledon, and the USO during that period. Safin and Hewitt are better players (well, Safin can be) than Roddick. Those other guys were at least on that day. Basically, he could make the finals as long as he didn't run into someone who was actually good.

Safin's a good example. Safin's serve isn't quite at Roddick's level, but objectively, is there anything else that Roddick does better? Not a shock that theoretical "peak" Roddick lost to peak Safin.
 
Crazy Finn said:
You could say that about a bunch of players. Meaningless.

Roddick - overrated
Wawrinka - correctly rated

Roddick had opportunities to win slams in 2003-2005 when there wasn't a bunch of dominant players. He managed one. He could have been one of those dominant players, but frankly, he wasn't good enough. Sure, he lost to Roger a few times, but he also lost to Rainer Schuttler, Safin, Joachim Johansson, Hewitt, and Muller at AO, Wimbledon, and the USO during that period. Safin and Hewitt are better players (well, Safin can be) than Roddick. Those other guys were at least on that day. Basically, he could make the finals as long as he didn't run into someone who was actually good.

Safin's a good example. Safin's serve isn't quite at Roddick's level, but objectively, is there anything else that Roddick does better? Not a shock that theoretical "peak" Roddick lost to peak Safin.
Click to expand...
Forehand. Slice.

Is much worse at watching Fed choke matches away tho
 
"Even" doesn't seem quite right, but they're both great in such different ways it's hard to compare. Outside of converting slam finals, their slam records are very similar. Almost identical numbers of finals, semifinals, quarterfinals. And considering one of Wawrinka's slam final wins was against a very obviously ailing Nadal (who Roddick almost certainly would also have beaten had he been the one playing in the final, though whether he made the final in the first place is another story) and another was against a subpar, also slightly ailing Djokovic (who, again, Roddick would have a good shot at beating), the difference in actual slam title count doesn't seem as huge. What impresses me maybe even more about Wawrinka's slam record in this comparison is the number of top 10 wins – Wawrinka beat a top 10 player 21 times at the majors. Roddick just 6. You can quibble with the quality of some of those top 10 wins (is beating Dimitrov in back-to-back majors all that impressive when he would finish the year barely inside the top 20 with just 57% of matches won and no titles? Not really), but you can't quibble away the entire gap. It's clear Wawrinka was better at beating the top opposition in the biggest tournaments.

On the other hand, Roddick has some big things over Wawrinka. Twice as many titles, a 10% gap in career win-loss %, five Masters titles to Wawrinka's one, 9 straight year-end top-10 finishes compared to 5 for Wawrinka. He also ended a year at number one (and another at two and another at three, all higher than any of Wawrinka's year-end finishes), and even if we concede that an equivalent season for Wawrinka in the 2010s would not yield a number-one ranking, 2003 is still a much better year than any Wawrinka produced. A slam, two Masters, three other titles, and 79% of matches won. In short, Roddick was far more consistent across all tournaments played throughout his career and had the single-best season of either player, but Wawrinka was better at beating the best guys at the majors (and consequently won a couple more). Either one seems justifiable to me.
 
Fabresque said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah, well obviously when you take away the biggest titles in the game from Stan, he's going to look less than Roddick lol.

That's like saying take away Sampras's slams and he'd have a lesser career than Murray.
 
ConnorH said:
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.
Click to expand...

But they were the most important matches. Wawrinka twice beat an ATG in slam finals, Roddick twice lost to an ATG when he could have won (2004 and 2009 W). That's the difference between the two men.
 
Wawrinka broke through some huge obstacles to win the slams he has, like FO 15 and AO 14, he managed to find a way, Roddick didn't. Although Roddick didnt get a crappy version of Fed like Djoe at USO 16.

Roddick has some important stats in his favour, but all in all he didn't prove himself against the best like Wawrinka did, he failed over and over against Federer, and that's the downfall for him in this discussion.
 
stan at his best is a stronger all-around player BUT roddicks serve/big forehand from early days make up for a lot there.

i guess i have to go w stan, 3-1 is a big margin in slams but reaching #1 is a big deal, if for however short a stretch.
 
Brutal, especially given the accuracy.
Crazy Finn said:
...Roddick is the prototype modern American player. Big Serve, hit hard, brainless tennis - oh look, I lost. What a shock. I haven't rooted for any American male tennis (singles) players post-Andre, and this is why. They have won exactly as much as they deserve to have won.
Click to expand...
 
I'd say about even.. Stan has more majors but that's about it. Roddick has more slam finals, more masters, greater consistency and reached year end No. 1.
 
Stan is greater — 3 slams > 1 slam. But it’s unclear who is “better” in my opinion. Take away ultra prime federer for a year or two and Roddick could easily hit 3+ slams
 
Stan is greater as of now due to having overcome the best in slams, even if he had a favorable match-up against one of them.

Having said that, Roddick would like his chances against Djokovic more than prime Fed because Djokovic has proven he can play some stinkers in big matches in his prime or close to it, which would help Roddick if Roddick brought something resembling his best in those matches where Novak is poor. Those matches would be Wimb 2013 F, USO 2014 SF and USO 2016 F.

Fed never played a stinker of a slam match against Roddick.
 
tudwell said:
"Even" doesn't seem quite right, but they're both great in such different ways it's hard to compare. Outside of converting slam finals, their slam records are very similar. Almost identical numbers of finals, semifinals, quarterfinals. And considering one of Wawrinka's slam final wins was against a very obviously ailing Nadal (who Roddick almost certainly would also have beaten had he been the one playing in the final, though whether he made the final in the first place is another story) and another was against a subpar, also slightly ailing Djokovic (who, again, Roddick would have a good shot at beating), the difference in actual slam title count doesn't seem as huge. What impresses me maybe even more about Wawrinka's slam record in this comparison is the number of top 10 wins – Wawrinka beat a top 10 player 21 times at the majors. Roddick just 6. You can quibble with the quality of some of those top 10 wins (is beating Dimitrov in back-to-back majors all that impressive when he would finish the year barely inside the top 20 with just 57% of matches won and no titles? Not really), but you can't quibble away the entire gap. It's clear Wawrinka was better at beating the top opposition in the biggest tournaments.

On the other hand, Roddick has some big things over Wawrinka. Twice as many titles, a 10% gap in career win-loss %, five Masters titles to Wawrinka's one, 9 straight year-end top-10 finishes compared to 5 for Wawrinka. He also ended a year at number one (and another at two and another at three, all higher than any of Wawrinka's year-end finishes), and even if we concede that an equivalent season for Wawrinka in the 2010s would not yield a number-one ranking, 2003 is still a much better year than any Wawrinka produced. A slam, two Masters, three other titles, and 79% of matches won. In short, Roddick was far more consistent across all tournaments played throughout his career and had the single-best season of either player, but Wawrinka was better at beating the best guys at the majors (and consequently won a couple more). Either one seems justifiable to me.
Click to expand...
No stone unturned in this post (y)

Anyone saying they are close or one of them is ahead of the other slightly is fine by me. The more extreme opinions in favor of Stan are a little much imo.
 
tudwell said:
"Even" doesn't seem quite right, but they're both great in such different ways it's hard to compare. Outside of converting slam finals, their slam records are very similar. Almost identical numbers of finals, semifinals, quarterfinals. And considering one of Wawrinka's slam final wins was against a very obviously ailing Nadal (who Roddick almost certainly would also have beaten had he been the one playing in the final, though whether he made the final in the first place is another story) and another was against a subpar, also slightly ailing Djokovic (who, again, Roddick would have a good shot at beating), the difference in actual slam title count doesn't seem as huge. What impresses me maybe even more about Wawrinka's slam record in this comparison is the number of top 10 wins – Wawrinka beat a top 10 player 21 times at the majors. Roddick just 6. You can quibble with the quality of some of those top 10 wins (is beating Dimitrov in back-to-back majors all that impressive when he would finish the year barely inside the top 20 with just 57% of matches won and no titles? Not really), but you can't quibble away the entire gap. It's clear Wawrinka was better at beating the top opposition in the biggest tournaments.

On the other hand, Roddick has some big things over Wawrinka. Twice as many titles, a 10% gap in career win-loss %, five Masters titles to Wawrinka's one, 9 straight year-end top-10 finishes compared to 5 for Wawrinka. He also ended a year at number one (and another at two and another at three, all higher than any of Wawrinka's year-end finishes), and even if we concede that an equivalent season for Wawrinka in the 2010s would not yield a number-one ranking, 2003 is still a much better year than any Wawrinka produced. A slam, two Masters, three other titles, and 79% of matches won. In short, Roddick was far more consistent across all tournaments played throughout his career and had the single-best season of either player, but Wawrinka was better at beating the best guys at the majors (and consequently won a couple more). Either one seems justifiable to me.
Click to expand...
Roddick's #wins in Slams are a bit deflated cause a ton of his Wimbledon wins were against clear top 10 grass players in the world who were ranked lower.
 
Red Rick said:
Roddick's #wins in Slams are a bit deflated cause a ton of his Wimbledon wins were against clear top 10 grass players in the world who were ranked lower.
Click to expand...
True. Also Wawrinka's rank was generally lower than Roddick's so he would run into top 10 players earlier and more often. But credit to him for beating so many.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
It's not OK to say Roddick is ahead of Wawrinka, sorry.
Click to expand...
opinionated.gif
 
stringertom said:
Where is the math? Slaminal won 3; Roddick won 1.
Click to expand...
Gee two injury retirements early. Reality 1 to 1. Wawrinka's first victory over Nadal was an injury also but the Spaniard soldiered through, even won a set while having to stand and serve. It was 12 to 1 at that point. Wawrinka has only been great against Djokovic in final grand slams.
 
Mark Anderson said:
Gee two injury retirements early. Reality 1 to 1. Wawrinka's first victory over Nadal was an injury also but the Spaniard soldiered through, even won a set while having to stand and serve. It was 12 to 1 at that point. Wawrinka has only been great against Djokovic in final grand slams.
Click to expand...
You’re claiming the USO’16 title was on an injury retirement and also ignore Wawrinka was in control at AO’14 when The Nadal suffered his back ache? Please, share what you’re smoking to be that out of touch with reality.

Bottom line, undisputed fact: Wawrinka is 3-1 in slam finals, all against ATGs. Roddick retired 1-4 in slam finals and the lone win wasthe only one either of them played against an ATG.
 
mike danny said:
Stan is greater as of now due to having overcome the best in slams, even if he had a favorable match-up against one of them.

Having said that, Roddick would like his chances against Djokovic more than prime Fed because Djokovic has proven he can play some stinkers in big matches in his prime or close to it, which would help Roddick if Roddick brought something resembling his best in those matches where Novak is poor. Those matches would be Wimb 2013 F, USO 2014 SF and USO 2016 F.

Fed never played a stinker of a slam match against Roddick.
Click to expand...
rodick lost all his matches vs fed in feds era and never won a match vs nole in noles era. last time he lost to nole he said that it was a level that he was not use to and that he saw that he can not compet to top gays.

nole never lost a slam match wasting match points while fed lost 6 slam matches having MPs. nole played many slam finals and SF even when he was not in his best form becouse his average level was to high for most players. the only time he was on the top but strongly underperform was in USO21 final due pressure for CYGS and slam record! it was little beat to match for him.

saying that, slams are not everything that matter and i would call rod and wawa about even. if i must choose one so i think that rod had greater career!
 
I think the difference is that Roddick had his results during the weakest era ever while while Warinka had his results during the strongest era ever
 
It's Roddick without much question to me. 3 slams vs 1 doesn't outweigh actually getting to Number 1 in the world. There have been way more slam winners than there have been World #1's.
 
manley0702 said:
It's Roddick without much question to me. 3 slams vs 1 doesn't outweigh actually getting to Number 1 in the world. There have been way more slam winners than there have been World #1's.
Click to expand...
this is actually true. i think they are pretty even but no1 and especially YE#1 is pretty big and make difference. not matter much weaker era, it is very great accomplishment. but rod has even one more slam F, 4 masters and 14 MM titles.
 
Last edited:
manley0702 said:
It's Roddick without much question to me. 3 slams vs 1 doesn't outweigh actually getting to Number 1 in the world. There have been way more slam winners than there have been World #1's.
Click to expand...


Slam count > Weeks at 1.

Becker has 6 slams and 12 weeks at 1.
Hewitt has 2 slams and 80+ weeks at 1.

There's not debate as to who is better.

Wawrinka has 3 slams and 0 weeks at 1.
Ríos has 0 slams and some weeks at 1.

No debate as to whom is greater either.

That said, Roddick has a case since he's superior in virtually everything else outside the slam count. But Wawrinka having a higher slam count and beating stronger competition to get it, gives him the edge. Roddick doesn't have a huge amount of impressive wins at slams, yes, he did reach many finals because of his consistency there, but it's not like he had tons of big wins to get to those finals. In fact, I believe he had zero top 10 wins to reach his first 4 or 5 slam finals. Wawrinka has 3 wins over Djokovic, 1 over Nadal 1 over Federer and a few over Murray or Delpo too. Roddick's finest win was against a great but not peak Murray in 2009, against Ferrero who was very good but not elite on HC maybe the 2nd best. So while he would have won a few slams without Federer around, he didn't have huge wins at slams. Well below Safin in that regard for sure, below Hewitt likely too, talking about contemporaries.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
Slam count > Weeks at 1.

Becker has 6 slams and 12 weeks at 1.
Hewitt has 2 slams and 80+ weeks at 1.

There's not debate as to who is better.

Wawrinka has 3 slams and 0 weeks at 1.
Ríos has 0 slams and some weeks at 1.

No debate as to whom is greater either.

That said, Roddick has a case since he's superior in virtually everything else outside the slam count. But Wawrinka having a higher slam count and beating stronger competition to get it, gives him the edge. Roddick doesn't have a huge amount of impressive wins at slams, yes, he did reach many finals because of his consistency there, but it's not like he had tons of big wins to get to those finals. In fact, I believe he had zero top 10 wins to reach his first 4 or 5 slam finals. Wawrinka has 3 wins over Djokovic, 1 over Nadal 1 over Federer and a few over Murray or Delpo too. Roddick's finest win was against a great but not peak Murray in 2009, against Ferrero who was very good but not elite on HC maybe the 2nd best. So while he would have won a few slams without Federer around, he didn't have huge wins at slams. Well below Safin in that regard for sure, below Hewitt likely too, talking about contemporaries.
Click to expand...
it is big difference between becker and hewitt. both was no1 players. and it is 4 slams (double as much as vs wawa and roddick. wawa was never no1. not a single week. rios does not have slams so not good exemple.

roddick has slam, weeks at no1 and YE#1 that is very huge achievements. it is very big advantage to be YE#1 vs no #1 at all! and he has some masters and many MM more than wawa too.

for me pretty even but if i must choose one so roddick. he was both best player in the world and even more, was best player for one season. wawa was never in his life best player in the world! he was not even #2! and never top3 for any season in his career!
 
GoatNo1 said:
it is big difference between becker and hewitt. both was no1 players. and it is 4 slams (double as much as vs wawa and roddick. wawa was never no1. not a single week. rios does not have slams so not good exemple.

roddick has slam, weeks at no1 and YE#1 that is very huge achievements. it is very big advantage to be YE#1 vs no #1 at all! and he has some masters and many MM more than wawa too.

for me pretty even but if i must choose one so roddick. he was both best player in the world and even more, was best player for one season. wawa was never in his life best player in the world! he was not even #2! and never top3 for any season in his career!
Click to expand...

I agree that it's close, that's why I say Roddick does have a case over Stan, unlike Ríos vs Stan or Becker vs Hewitt. So I do take Wawrinka because having 3 slams and doing so with the competition he faced is a huge plus. But Roddick has a case, yeah.
 
Deleted member 748597 said:
Give one more Slam to Wawrinka and he is clearly ahead of Roddick. Give one more Slam to Roddick and he is clearly ahead of Wawrinka.

They are more or less even right now.
Click to expand...
Wawrinka beat 3 GOATS in finals at their peak.
Roddick lost to Fed GOAT in 3 slam finals and should have won won't them but choked instead. Roddick's earlier years were inflated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Wawrinka vs Safin
2
Replies
81
Views
5K
PaulC
P
D
Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is
10 11 12
Replies
556
Views
41K
Deleted member 748597
D
D
  • Poll Poll
Roddick vs Medvedev. Who is greater?
2 3 4
Replies
153
Views
7K
junkieballer
J
TheNachoMan
  • Poll Poll
Alcaraz vs Roddick
2 3
Replies
125
Views
7K
SonnyT
S
D
  • Poll Poll
Is Murray really greater than Hewitt?
8 9 10
Replies
476
Views
25K
Rebel-I.N.S
Rebel-I.N.S
Back
Top