Who did more damage: Fed to Roddick or Djokovic to Murray?

Who inflicted more damage on the other’s career?

  • Federer hurt Roddick’s career more

    Votes: 90 91.8%
  • Djokovic hurt Murray’s career more

    Votes: 8 8.2%

  • Total voters
    98

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Federer was 8-0 vs. Roddick in GS matches. He beat him in the following GS matches:
2003 W SF
2004 W F
2005 W F
2006 USO F
2007 AO SF
2007 USO QF
2009 AO SF
2009 W F

Given this domination, it is safe to say that Roddick would have won at least one (and likely multiple) Wimbledon titles, perhaps another USO title and maybe an AO. He likely would be viewed as a worthy successor to Sampras and Agassi (not their equal, but no second tier scion either).

Djokovic is 8-2 vs. Murray in GS matches. Here are the Djokovic victories over Murray in GS matches:
2011 AO F
2012 AO SF
2013 AO F
2014 USO QF
2015 AO F
2015 FO SF
2016 AO F
2016 FO F

Murray likely would have won at least 3 AO titles and at least 1 FO. He’d have won a career slam and would be considered on par with Edberg or Becker.

So which player suffered more and why?
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
3 AO's for Muzz :confused::confused::confused::confused::eek: Which ones?
2011, Fed was clearly better imo and doesn't lose a slam final to Muzz
2012, 50-50 with Rafa provided he doesn't have a 5 hour marathon in the semi.
2013, if Djoko's not there, Stanimal could have been born completely at that tournament. Still not a given, but a decent to good chance.
2015, again battling it out with Stanimal. Stanimal gave Djoko more of a contest iirc.
2016, Fed def. beats Murray here, he has his number

I'd say the answer is clearly Roddick - especially given that Murray did beat Djokovic in a fair few very important matches, including 2 slam finals, a WTF-final, a number of Masters finals and an Olympic semi, which lead to gold. Roddich haven't had wins vs. Fed close to that in importantance
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
3 AO's for Muzz :confused::confused::confused::confused::eek: Which ones?
2011, Fed was clearly better imo and doesn't lose a slam final to Muzz
2012, 50-50 with Rafa provided he doesn't have a 5 hour marathon in the semi.
2013, if Djoko's not there, Stanimal could have been born completely at that tournament. Still not a given, but a decent to good chance.
2015, again battling it out with Stanimal. Stanimal gave Djoko more of a contest iirc.
2016, Fed def. beats Murray here, he has his number

was about to type something similar.
he wins maybe 1 AO, 2 tops.
3 - nope.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
was about to type something similar.
he wins maybe 1 AO, 2 tops.
3 - nope.
Yeah, there's also the "Murray likely would have won at least 3 AO titles and at least 1 FO."
I'd say he does win the FO in 2016. But not a chance in hell in 2015.

There's a reason Murray is 3-8 in slam finals and it's not only due to Djokovic and Federer. It's about Murray's peak level and how he approaches a slam final. Does he go out and grab it or does he expect his opponent to make a bunch of errors if he gets enough balls back?
 
Difficult to say. Murray clearly had more success against Djokovic than Roddick to Federer, but without Federer I wouldn't be as certain Roddick would beat the other opponent in those other matches in a majority of situations. Nothing really scientific about my thoughts there, just gut feeling. With Murray, I think Djokovic is probably the difference between him being a true ATG in terms of career achievements and being at the level he is now.

Obviously all ifs and buts, but Murray would have been, I believe, the only man to win all the slams, the tour finals and Olympics, if not for Djokovic. He'd have multiple slams on all surfaces too, I believe.

Conversely, without Murray, Djokovic would probably have won the calendar Grand Slam in 2015 - being that he wouldn't have gone 5 sets in the semi-finals of the French and would have won against Wawrinka, IMO.


Back to the question though and you have to think about their existing legacy. Roddick retired, I think, as a bit of an also-ran. Murray will always be considered a great, so I guess probably Roddick got the worse end of the deal, but it's just all a matter of perspective.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
3 AO's for Muzz :confused::confused::confused::confused::eek: Which ones?
2011, Fed was clearly better imo and doesn't lose a slam final to Muzz
2012, 50-50 with Rafa provided he doesn't have a 5 hour marathon in the semi.
2013, if Djoko's not there, Stanimal could have been born completely at that tournament. Still not a given, but a decent to good chance.
2015, again battling it out with Stanimal. Stanimal gave Djoko more of a contest iirc.
2016, Fed def. beats Murray here, he has his number

I'd say the answer is clearly Roddick - especially given that Murray did beat Djokovic in a fair few very important matches, including 2 slam finals, a WTF-final, a number of Masters finals and an Olympic semi, which lead to gold. Roddich haven't had wins vs. Fed close to that in importantance


I also voted Fed to Roddick. Murray at least has an outside chance at some major career accomplishments if he can ever come back. The career slam might still be possible for him. Roddick’s career was eviscerated by Fed.
Fair enough, though Fed’s H2H vs. Murray is only 14-11 and Murray has beaten him in straight sets in five of those losses. Murray is no pushover for Fed and beat him in the 2013 AO.
I think Murray wins 2-3 of the 6 AO finals with no Djokovic.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that Roddick wins those Wimbledon/USO finals against an opponent not named Fed, but I think he would have 4-5 slams that he didn’t and be in the same league as Becker or Edberg.
 

AiRFederer

Hall of Fame
Why does Murray get the benefit of the doubt of winning automatically without Djoko but Roddick doesnt? Roddick played in 3 wimby finals, 1 wimby SF, all of which he was stopped by a peak Fed. Murray on the other hand, lost in the AO multiple times before reaching Djoko (against 0lderer).
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
hVAwiU
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I think Roddick suffered more from Fed but also think that the damage inflicted on Murray by Fed/Djokovic tag team is far greater than that Fed inflicted on Roddick.

People on the forum are quick to trash Murray but let’s not forget that ALL his first 10 GS finals were against the GOAT or Djokovic. That’s the first sevel slam finals on HC were against the two greatest HC players ever (by win percentage) and then two late stage Wimbledon matches against Federer.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Difficult to say. Murray clearly had more success against Djokovic than Roddick to Federer, but without Federer I wouldn't be as certain Roddick would beat the other opponent in those other matches in a majority of situations. Nothing really scientific about my thoughts there, just gut feeling. With Murray, I think Djokovic is probably the difference between him being a true ATG in terms of career achievements and being at the level he is now.

Obviously all ifs and buts, but Murray would have been, I believe, the only man to win all the slams, the tour finals and Olympics, if not for Djokovic. He'd have multiple slams on all surfaces too, I believe.

Conversely, without Murray, Djokovic would probably have won the calendar Grand Slam in 2015 - being that he wouldn't have gone 5 sets in the semi-finals of the French and would have won against Wawrinka, IMO.


Back to the question though and you have to think about their existing legacy. Roddick retired, I think, as a bit of an also-ran. Murray will always be considered a great, so I guess probably Roddick got the worse end of the deal, but it's just all a matter of perspective.
Here's my view on things:

Without Federer, Roddick has very high chances of winning Wimb 2003, Wimb 2004, Wimb 2009 and USO 2006. Simply because in those slams there were no opponents you could think would actually have amazing chances to beat Roddick.

There are others too, but Gonzo in AO 2007 was red hot, Djokovic was also playing well at the 2007 USO, Nadal was too good at 2009 AO and Hewitt was also playing well at 2005 Wimb and Roddick wasn't. So these were no guarantees compared to the above 4. Or at least would have been much touhger to win than the above 4.

Murray would have still lost AO 2011 and AO 2016 to Fed. AO 2013 and AO 2015 also wouldn't have been guarantees with the way Wawrinka was playing in those. AO 2012 also wasn't a guarantee with the way Nadal was playing. So that leaves only FO 2016 as pretty much a certainty.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Fair enough, though Fed’s H2H vs. Murray is only 14-11 and Murray has beaten him in straight sets in five of those losses. Murray is no pushover for Fed and beat him in the 2013 AO.

Thread is about slams, right? Murray is 1-5 against Fed in slams with 3 of those losses being in straights and his sole win being a 5 setter (coming in a year that wasn't exactly stellar for Fed).

Don't think anyone would favour Murray over Fed in 2011 and 2016 AO finals.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Thread is about slams, right? Murray is 1-5 against Fed in slams with 3 of those losses being in straights and his sole win being a 5 setter (coming in a year that wasn't exactly stellar for Fed).

Don't think anyone would favour Murray over Fed in 2011 and 2016 AO finals.
I wouldn’t favor him either, but he would be a worthy opponent. 2016 Fed was not exactly peak level.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I wouldn’t favor him either, but he would be a worthy opponent. 2016 Fed was not exactly peak level.

He was pretty damn good against Dimitrov and Berdych IIRC, just ran into an absolutely beasting Novak.

Could see it being a tussle definitely but Murray's problem is that he's just too passive overall (though he had periods where he upped the ante from the baseline) and defense rarely beats Fed (even older Fed) in slams.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Here's my view on things:

Without Federer, Roddick has very high chances of winning Wimb 2003, Wimb 2004, Wimb 2009 and USO 2006. Simply because in those slams there were no opponents you could think would actually have amazing chances to beat Roddick.

There are others too, but Gonzo in AO 2007 was red hot, Djokovic was also playing well at the 2007 USO, Nadal was too good at 2009 AO and Hewitt was also playing well at 2005 Wimb and Roddick wasn't. So these were no guarantees compared to the above 4. Or at least would have been much touhger to win than the above 4.

Murray would have still lost AO 2011 and AO 2016 to Fed. AO 2013 and AO 2015 also wouldn't have been guarantees with the way Wawrinka was playing in those. AO 2012 also wasn't a guarantee with the way Nadal was playing. So that leaves only FO 2016 as pretty much a certainty.
So Roddick was in a weaker era? ;)
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
How the hell is this a real question? Damage? Murray owes most of his career in part due to Djokovic not showing up to major finals not once but twice.

Not to mention that Roddick pushed a well playing peak/prime Federer more than Murray ever pushed a well playing Djokovic or post prime Federer. He "deserved" a gimme or two over Federer probably more than Murray did over Djokovic, but Federer isn't as nice a guy as Djokovic.
 
3 AO's for Muzz :confused::confused::confused::confused::eek: Which ones?
2011, Fed was clearly better imo and doesn't lose a slam final to Muzz
2012, 50-50 with Rafa provided he doesn't have a 5 hour marathon in the semi.
2013, if Djoko's not there, Stanimal could have been born completely at that tournament. Still not a given, but a decent to good chance.
2015, again battling it out with Stanimal. Stanimal gave Djoko more of a contest iirc.

2016, Fed def. beats Murray here, he has his number

I'd say the answer is clearly Roddick - especially given that Murray did beat Djokovic in a fair few very important matches, including 2 slam finals, a WTF-final, a number of Masters finals and an Olympic semi, which lead to gold. Roddich haven't had wins vs. Fed close to that in importantance

Murray matches up differently with Wawrinka, for some reason. Beat him at RG '16, and leads their head to head. Those could have been close matches, and I wouldn't put it past Murray atleast splitting it.

As an aside, Djokovic hurt Fed quite a bit as well.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
Murray matches up differently with Wawrinka, for some reason. Beat him at RG '16, and leads their head to head. Those could have been close matches, and I wouldn't put it past Murray atleast splitting it.

As an aside, Djokovic hurt Fed quite a bit as well.

But yet it was Djokovic’s father who was publicly wondering why Federer still playing at 34.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you asking who suffered more or who would've won more? Either way the answer is A-Rod.

Who suffered more:
You said it yourself, 8-0 vs 8-2

Who would've won more:
I agree with previous posters. Roddick would've been more of a lock vs the field in the finals he made than Murray in his finals since he still would've had to deal with Fedal w/o Novak.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
He was pretty damn good against Dimitrov and Berdych IIRC, just ran into an absolutely beasting Novak.

Could see it being a tussle definitely but Murray's problem is that he's just too passive overall (though he had periods where he upped the ante from the baseline) and defense rarely beats Fed (even older Fed) in slams.

Fed was pretty good vs Goffin and Berdych at the AO in 2016. He was decent (up and down) vs Dimitrov, not that great.
first 2 sets of the Novak semi, he was slow to get off the blocks and Novak absolutely beasting made it bad.

I agree, 2016 AO fed would beat 2016 AO Murray. Murray could've easily to Raonic in the semi , if not for Raonic's injury in the 4th set.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
How the hell is this a real question? Damage? Murray owes most of his career in part due to Djokovic not showing up to major finals not once but twice.

Not to mention that Roddick pushed a well playing peak/prime Federer more than Murray ever pushed a well playing Djokovic or post prime Federer. He "deserved" a gimme or two over Federer probably more than Murray did over Djokovic, but Federer isn't as nice a guy as Djokovic.
So making 11 GS finals shows that Murray “owes” his career to Djokovic?
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Are you asking who suffered more or who would've won more? Either way the answer is A-Rod.

Who suffered more:
You said it yourself, 8-0 vs 8-2

Who would've won more:
I agree with previous posters. Roddick would've been more of a lock vs the field in the finals he made than Murray in his finals since he still would've had to deal with Fedal w/o Novak.
8 losses are 8 losses, and both guys were seriously impeded in their GS ambitions by two ATGs. Yes, Murray had better success against Djokovic than Roddick did against Fed, but that’s not saying much!
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Initial impression was Federer to Roddick because his career would be viewed totally differently if he had won Wimbledon even once (and he might have won it twice or more without Federer). Djokovic and Murray won about equal to how good of players they are, Murray actually beat ND twice in slam finals. Murray's results are fine for his legacy, 3 slams, 2 Wimbledon's, the 1st British guy to (fill in the blank)...about what he could have hoped for, he's always been the 4th best of the "Big 4". Roddick on the other hand is so far behind Federer that was never even a debate after about 2004, but his career by itself would be viewed uch more favorably if he could have gotten at least 1 USO or especially a Wimbledon victory over Federer. As it is now, his 1 slam title is the USO vs Ferrer, and he is viewed as a disappointing one slam wonder by many (not saying that's fair, just how it is.)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
8 losses are 8 losses, and both guys were seriously impeded in their GS ambitions by two ATGs. Yes, Murray had better success against Djokovic than Roddick did against Fed, but that’s not saying much!


On the contrary, it's saying that Murray won 8 big titles against Djokovic (2 Slams, 1 WTF and 5 Masters), 3 against Federer (1 Olympics and 2 Masters) and 1 against Nadal (a Masters on clay). That's 12 big titles won in finals against the Big 3! Roddick won 0 against any of them! Call me biased but I'd say that's saying a great deal much!! :cool:
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
2016 Fed??? The one who couldn't get past Raonic at Wimbledon?? Like...REALLY???

pretty sure Chanwan was talking about 2016 fed at the AO, not wimbledon.

Fed at 2016 AO was playing better than Murray was.

fed had injury problems after 2016 AO and played well below par after that before taking off 2nd half of the year.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I also voted Fed to Roddick. Murray at least has an outside chance at some major career accomplishments if he can ever come back. The career slam might still be possible for him. Roddick’s career was eviscerated by Fed.
Fair enough, though Fed’s H2H vs. Murray is only 14-11 and Murray has beaten him in straight sets in five of those losses. Murray is no pushover for Fed and beat him in the 2013 AO.
I think Murray wins 2-3 of the 6 AO finals with no Djokovic.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that Roddick wins those Wimbledon/USO finals against an opponent not named Fed, but I think he would have 4-5 slams that he didn’t and be in the same league as Becker or Edberg.
Has a chance? He comes back at 150 in the world (and slipping) recovering from injury/surgery.

Guess Roddick has a chance if he starts playing again.

Murray no pushover? He was in the form of his life, Fed was 32 and had a back injury and was coming back from a tough five setter VS Tsonga. Yet Fed still took him to 5 in his only loss to Murray in majors.

Roddick would have had a chance there too.

Murray is hugely overrated. He really isn't much different to Roddick in the real scheme of things.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Has a chance? He comes back at 150 in the world (and slipping) recovering from injury/surgery.

Guess Roddick has a chance if he starts playing again.

Murray no pushover? He was in the form of his life, Fed was 32 and had a back injury and was coming back from a tough five setter VS Tsonga. Yet Fed still took him to 5 in his only loss to Murray in majors.

Roddick would have had a chance there too.

Murray is hugely overrated. He really isn't much different to Roddick in the real scheme of things.

Fed didn't have a back injury at AO, he got it in IW against Dodig. Not that he was in his best form by any means but not injured, AO was probably his best tourney in 2013.

Roddick would have had a decent shot against Fed in his 30s, I agree. People these days very much underrate Fed's 2004-2007 run, he was barely losing matches in that period and his confidence was at an all time high.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Fed didn't have a back injury at AO, he got it in IW against Dodig. Not that he was in his best form by any means but not injured, AO was probably his best tourney in 2013.

Roddick would have had a decent shot against Fed in his 30s, I agree. People these days very much underrate Fed's 2004-2007 run, he was barely losing matches in that period and his confidence was at an all time high.
Fed was wearing a back brace at the time. I think his back was giving him trouble but besides that I can't really prove it so each to their own.

A shame Roddick played Fed when he did. Worst possible matchup for him and Fed was at the peak of his powers. Absolutely nothing Roddick could do.
 

JackGates

Legend
Murray has beaten Novak in a slam final not once but twice so it’s a no brainer.
And Novak allowed Murray to become nr.1, no chance in hell prime Fed lets Roddick to do that.

Also, Murray wouldn't win most of those slams anyway, he would still lose to Nadal and Federer. Remember, Murray hasn't won a slam when he had to play them.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
2016 Fed??? The one who couldn't get past Raonic at Wimbledon?? Like...REALLY???
At the AO. And yes really. Btw, I would have been disappointed if you didn't take issue with my post Mainad ;-)
p.s. see my post 3 posts below this one
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Fed was wearing a back brace at the time. I think his back was giving him trouble but besides that I can't really prove it so each to their own.

You're right, I forgot he was. Either way, I don't think it's a coincidence Murray's slam win over Fed came in 2013 (when he wasn't even close on other occasions, save for 2012 Wimbledon) but just saying that I feel Fed's level at AO was better compared to the rest of the year where he was just godawful (some of the worst tennis I've ever seen him play).

A shame Roddick played Fed when he did. Worst possible matchup for him and Fed was at the peak of his powers. Absolutely nothing Roddick could do.

Yeah, people don't get that it wasn't just Fed being better than Roddick in absolute terms but that he was a bad match-up for Andy on top of it and extremely consistent in bringing it in slams/big matches.

You could see Roddick doing better against Fed after 2007 already, beat him in Miami twice and played him extremely close in a Wimbledon final. If he was 5 years younger than Fed (like Murray) I do think he would have gotten a win or two against Fed on the biggest stages very possibly leading to more slam titles.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
You're right, I forgot he was. Either way, I don't think it's a coincidence Murray's slam win over Fed came in 2013 (when he wasn't even close on other occasions, save for 2012 Wimbledon) but just saying that I feel Fed's level at AO was better compared to the rest of the year where he was just godawful (some of the worst tennis I've ever seen him play).



Yeah, people don't get that it wasn't just Fed being better than Roddick in absolute terms but that he was a bad match-up for Andy on top of it and extremely consistent in bringing it in slams/big matches.

You could see Roddick doing better against Fed after 2007 already, beat him in Miami twice and played him extremely close in a Wimbledon final. If he was 5 years younger than Fed (like Murray) I do think he would have gotten a win or two against Fed on the biggest stages very possibly leading to more slam titles.

Federer's 2013 came to an unofficial end after he hurt his back big time in IW in the 4th round. I remember watching the moment it happened and how his level just dropped off from that very instant. He never recovered until the start of the next season.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
I also voted Fed to Roddick. Murray at least has an outside chance at some major career accomplishments if he can ever come back. The career slam might still be possible for him. Roddick’s career was eviscerated by Fed.
Fair enough, though Fed’s H2H vs. Murray is only 14-11 and Murray has beaten him in straight sets in five of those losses. Murray is no pushover for Fed and beat him in the 2013 AO.
I think Murray wins 2-3 of the 6 AO finals with no Djokovic.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that Roddick wins those Wimbledon/USO finals against an opponent not named Fed, but I think he would have 4-5 slams that he didn’t and be in the same league as Becker or Edberg.
At least we agree on Roddick.
Other than that, I think you're looking
a) too much on the overall h2h
b) too little on when Andy built his lead (the early years in Masters) and
c) too little on their slam matches (5-1) and
d) too little on the number of times Andy laid an egg vs. Djokovic in a slam (or Federer for that matter).

Andy won in AO 13, yes, but part of that was due to Fed going 5 with Tsonga the previous round (and wearing a back brace). Andy did play an excellent match though.
Would there really be a year, where you would favor Andy over Fed outside of that (in a year, where Fed was a factor that is?)

2011 (look at AO 2010 and how Andy performed in the 2011 final - he wasn't ready to win a slam yet),
2016 (look at their h2h since 2013)

As for the 2-3 out of 6, then
1) he only made 5 finals (one lost to Federer) and
2) he lost to Djoko 5 times, one time being in the semi (2012).

I'd say 1, perhaps 2. With 2013, 2015 and 2012 being the candidates. He doesn't take all 3 and he's not beating Fed in 2011 (before being a slam winner) or 2016 (after not winning a single set in 2 full years).
Murray matches up differently with Wawrinka, for some reason. Beat him at RG '16, and leads their head to head. Those could have been close matches, and I wouldn't put it past Murray atleast splitting it.

As an aside, Djokovic hurt Fed quite a bit as well.
He also lost twice at the US to Stan, one of those times way back in 2010. And Stan won their 2017 RG match (even if it cost his his season)

Stan has by far his best h2h with Murray compared to his record vs. the Big 4 (10-8 to Muzz).
Djokovic leads Stan something like 16-1 outside of slams.

And most pivotal: Stan doesn't lay an egg in a slam final (except if hampered, FO 2017). He brings out his big guns.
I will give you that Murray is the most likely winner in 2013 given that that was the very tournament where Stan discovered his powers and he still couldn't be certain of going through Birdman and Ferrer, nor at being his ruthless slam-final self just yet.
But 2015, I gotta lean towards Stan. So 1 each? And then close to a coin-flip between Rafa and Muzz in 2012 with Rafa possibly being the minor favorite.

And yes, I've always maintained that Djokovic hurt Fed more than he hurt Rafa. Even though we collectively remember those 2 7 match win streaks better, especially the first.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
You're right, I forgot he was. Either way, I don't think it's a coincidence Murray's slam win over Fed came in 2013 (when he wasn't even close on other occasions, save for 2012 Wimbledon) but just saying that I feel Fed's level at AO was better compared to the rest of the year where he was just godawful (some of the worst tennis I've ever seen him play).
True, but it wasn't great going by Fed's standards. He kind of willed himself into the SF and battled hard against Tsonga to even get there. I think the AO was the start of Fed's back troubles; morein I feel him pushing himself to get to the SF did more harm than good for the rest of the year.



zagor said:
Yeah, people don't get that it wasn't just Fed being better than Roddick in absolute terms but that he was a bad match-up for Andy on top of it and extremely consistent in bringing it in slams/big matches.

You could see Roddick doing better against Fed after 2007 already, beat him in Miami twice and played him extremely close in a Wimbledon final. If he was 5 years younger than Fed (like Murray) I do think he would have gotten a win or two against Fed on the biggest stages very possibly leading to more slam titles.
The problem really is that Roddick was the same age as Federer, so whenever he came up with some insane play of his own Fed would counter it.

2009 Wimbledon was great from Roddick. In many other years he'd have won the whole thing if he was around and brought that level of play. I don't know if Nadal could stop him if he brought that sort of level the next year. But Roddick was pretty much finished after he lost that final and you could tell he knew that himself with how emotional he was.
 
Top