Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BigT, May 2, 2008.
Roddick gets my vote. Without his serve, he wouldn't make a collage team.
Are you challenging Roddick's artistic abilities?
he wouldn't make either.....not all of us went to college.....
I wouldn't say Roddick because he has a solid forehand and decent backhand to back up his game. My vote would go to Karlovic because without his serve he wouldn't even be on the ATP tour.
^^^Hmmmm, have to agree with your assessment.
It takes more to get to #1 in the world with just a serve.
I read the title of this thread and thought another roddick bashing thread...here we go again.
I think Karlovic relies on his serve more than Roddick.
The Gonzales forehand anyone?
Probably Karlovic, or Isner....
Tell me about it. Roddick could serve underhand and he would beat most college players. NOT ALL, but most.
People have already said Karlovic, which I agree with. Everyone remember what Jim Courier did with that inside out forehand?
- If Federer didn't have his forehand, he wouldn't be in the running for "greatest of all time."
- If Gustavo Kuerten didn't have his backhand, he wouldn't have won the French Open so many times.
- If Pete Sampras didn't have his serve...etc.
I don't really get these threads about relying on strokes. If you take away Roddick's serve, what kind of serve are you giving him to replace it, and what's wrong with relying on a stroke if it helps you win?
I suppose I rely on my legs. Take those away, and I'd have trouble even walking...
That would be Karlovic or Isner,definitely not Roddick IMO,I mean he beat Nadal 6-2 in Dubai this year.Roddick's forehand isn't what it was in 2003-2004 but it's still a weapon and his backhand and return of serve have improved under Connors,also his movement isn't nearly as bad as some people here think.
Gotta be Karlovic. Roddick gets hated on so much.
Roddick for sure. He is not a tennis player, he is a server.
Except when he breaks Nadal's serve twice in Dubai.
I can't tell if that is serious or not. I hope your being sarcastic.
Also forgot to say, Karlovic is a basketball player, who got lost and somehow ended up on a tennis court, so he should not be considered here.
karlovic wouldnt be on a college team without his serve
Blake and his forehand? Though I agree, Gonzalez depends on his forehand even more than Blake does.
Karlovic for SURE
Yeah I mean come on, at least Blake tries to serve and volley. You could say that they're both helpless without their forehand though
I don't know that I agree with all the hating on Karlovic, who clearly has the best serve in the game. Obviously, without his serve he wouldn't be a touring pro, but it is just silly to say he wouldn't be a college player.
I watched him in person for the first time this year at Indian Wells, and while he doesn't hit big topspin shots, he was easily ripping 90mph forehand winners when he got his chances and his slice backhand was steady. He also has nice touch at the net.
Give him an average serve and he could still play D1 tennis at the college level.
Another foolish newbie thread about Roddick and his "only weapon".
Despite what some of you Roddick haters think, he is more well rounded than you give him credit for. Sure he is not Federer with the finesse and much more mechanical in his game, but he does have a game outside of just his serve.
If you could point to one player who is currently living off of a one dimensional game, it would have to be Ivo Karlovic. Take away his serve and the rest of his game is sorely lacking compared with other top professional players.
i have to say isner. without that serve, he wouldnt be pro. plain and simple. his movement, inevitably, isnt great, and his groundstrokes dont have too much sting to them.
but gonzo's forehand is his weapon, and his weakness *in that it's probably so easy to beat him if his forehand isn't perfect*
to be quite honest, it sounds really short-sighted to try and say that any of the top pros are just "one shot wonders". do some pros rely on certain shots more than others? of course. do some pros have one shot much more developed and reliable than all their other shots? sure.
but think of it this way: don't you think that other pros realize that karlovic is heavily reliant on his serve? don't you think they're intelligent enough to realize they have to make him run and hit lots of groundstrokes? isn't it obvious that you'd rather not hit to the roddick or gonzalez forehand, that you can have a lot of success if you pick on the backhand instead?
it's easy to play armchair tennis, but you can bet that any decent opponent is going to try and exploit these weaknesses, and if even a top pro can't exploit the weakness, then it would appear necessary to allow for the idea that perhaps these pros, while perhaps heavily reliant on a certain shot, do have very solid skills in all areas of the sport.
it most definitely makes life easier to have a serve like roddick's or karlovic's, but it's folly to make a statement like "roddick has a terrible backhand". you can't be consistently in the top 5 or 6 with a "terrible" backhand.
wow thankgod for some reasonable people out there. this should be stickied and posted everywhere. I dont know how many of you tried to hit a ball with a pro but i tell you, even if they played the entire game with their weakest shot, they will still whip ur ass. Let roddick serve backhanded and play only with his backhand and he will still ace me probably.
Monfils comes to mind. He thinks he can rely on his sliding forehand.
Overall I think his game is just horrible. His movement is very very awkward. Just serve and volley and you will probably get him in all sorts of trouble.
His forehand can be great if he learned how to hit on the rise or take the ball earlier. His backhand same...Just too passive.
Serve is pretty good though. Just needs to beef it up more.
why does everyone always dog on roddick?
Blake-forehand more than roddick and his serve
Take away any player's serve and they would stand at the baseline with the ball in their hand. It'd be hard to win like that.
I would have to say that Roddick relies on his lob the most. I would easily beat him if he couldn't use his awesome lob.
why hasnt any1 mentioned moya's forehand??
definetly karlovic. as for those in the top 10, roddick
Without his 2 handed inside out slice backhand drive/dropshot-hybrid passing shot, he would be nowhere.
Oh gosh Roddick!!!! he relies way too much on that backhand of his.
Karlovic, roddick has got good groundstrokes. His forehand was immense although i agree its not what it used to be and his backhand is good, not great but he can still pull of passing shots with it.
Karlovic. without his height, he is nothing
yeah.. i will bet a million dollars that you lose. even if he had no backhand or good footspeed. you'd still lose.
If you paypal me $50 I'll fix that broken sarcasm detector of yours.
Steffi Graf and her forehand.
I agree with you but you make it sound like it is easy to avoid Gonzalez's Forehand, Blake's Forehand or Karlovic's serve etc. It really isn't. Nadal does a wonderful job of it picking on Federer's backhand on clay but returning Karlovic's and Roddick's serve effectively is really difficult for the pros. Karlovic isn't terrible in other areas of the game but noticeably weaker than other players around the same ranking. You can tell by how many tiebreaker's Karlovic plays. I wouldn't be surprised if he has the highest percentage of sets gone to tiebreaks. Roddick I agree gets to much hate for his strokes. His volley can be effective, his backhand is solid but is noticeably lacking in technique and noticeably weaker than other backhands around the same ranking like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Nalbandian.
That is true, I didn't mean to make it sound like it was easy to do, just wanted to point out that when someone plays a gonzalez or a roddick, they're definitely aware of the forehand side and usually try to play away from it to limit that advantage as much as possible. but on the other hand, if the opponent's forehand down the line or the angled backhand cross is not as strong, then it's hard to play against a roddick or gonzo for sure.
it's also usually rare for someone with a huge serve to also have an amazing return game, so it sort of balances out. i remember watching one of goran ivanisevic's wimbledon matches and one of the commentators was noticing that goran's volleys were not that great, and the other commentator pointed out that since his serve was so huge, he really wasn't forced to hit good volleys that often. kind of an interesting perspective.
but yes, i'd agree that guys like karlovic and roddick are weaker in some areas of their games with respect to other similarly ranked players, but not weak overall.
if a match was played with both players serving underhand, Roddick would struggle to beat the top 5 WTA players....
Thanks for the obvious buddy. Listen, everybody on this board knows that they are sitting at a computer, rather then playing tennis professionally. So you don't have to point it out to us. Now let us get back to being Monday Morning Quarterbacks please............
well, sometimes it seems as if people don't realize that with the comments they make. of course, not everything should be taken so seriously, but some of the things people say on this board are just plain silly and unsubstantiated.
Is that sarcasm?
And I will add that to get to the top of the rankings, you really need a weapon or weapons. Roddick has his serve and used to have his forehand. Federer has his forehand and serve with everything else being well above average, Djokovic has his backhand and a powerful forehand, Gasquet has his backhand, Nalbandian has his backhand, Davydenko has powerful groundies etc.
Separate names with a comma.