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

[Chanwan]

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.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with this tbh

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

The important thing is Mury goat >>>>>>>> Arod

 

[Chanwan]

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.

haven't gone mediculously through your first 4 slams to Roddick, but the rest I agree with 100 %. Great post.

 

[FHtennisman]

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

Clearly talking about Fed at AO, he didn't look nearly as injured at the AO compared to Wimbledon in 2016.

 

[Chanwan]

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!

And 2 wins are 2 wins vs. zero wins. What's your point? You agree that Roddick was hurt the most. And in my and many others opinion, Roddick would have been favored to win more of those 8 losts ones than Muzz would.

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.)

ro ;-)

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

And 2 wins are 2 wins vs. zero wins. What's your point? You agree that Roddick was hurt the most. And in my and many others opinion, Roddick would have been favored to win more of those 8 losts ones than Muzz would.

Those were finals against Federer and Djokovic only. Roddick would get rekt just as badly if not even worse.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Those were finals against Federer and Djokovic only. Roddick would get rekt just as badly if not even worse.

Mugray would go slamless if he had to deal with peak Fed though.

(Your dislike for Roddick is about equal to my dislike for Murray ).

 

[Chanwan]

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!!

You're right Mainad, but to be fair to Roddick, he didn't get to the finals as much in the first place and would often meet them before the finals (and didn't play much of his best years in the Big 4 era). He did win Miami 2010 after being Rafa though. And likewise in Montreal 2003, where he first beat Fed and then Nalby.

Those were finals against Federer and Djokovic only. Roddick would get rekt just as badly if not even worse.

That's not the point. The point is how well they would have done in said tournament if not for Djokovic/Federer.

Not quite sure I follow on the Fed/Djoko. Muzz wouldn't have Fed in his way in all 8 losses to Djoko. Also, Roddick did pretty well vs. Novak h2h

 

[zagor]

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.

Yup, If I remember it correctly even Nadal asked Fed is he OK (or something similar) at the net when he trounced him in IW which was pure class from his side.

I do think most pros would have given up at that point of their career but instead Fed switched to a bigger racquet, a very bold career move for a guy with 17 slams. Luck and talent are overused terms when it comes to Fed even though undoubtebly he has had ample of both in his career. The sheer mental strength it takes to reinvent your game in your 30s and discard the tool that won you so many big titles is quite something in my eyes.

 

[zagor]

Mugray would go slamless if he had to deal with peak Fed though.

(Your dislike for Roddick is about equal to my dislike for Murray ).

in that 4 year period when Fed could do no wrong, sure. However, regardless of how you evaluate Murray's top level you can't deny his consistency is quite amazing. His last Wimbledon title came when he was what, 29? Fed already started slowing down at 26-27, even at Wimbledon he started having poor showings like in 2010/2011. Murray would have had his window of opportunity somewhere.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Mugray would go slamless if he had to deal with peak Fed though.

(Your dislike for Roddick is about equal to my dislike for Murray ).

And Roddick would never win three Slams in Djokovic's or any era.

IIRC you showed some sympathy towards him in the past. At least I am consistent when it comes to Roddick.

That's not the point. The point is how well they would have done in said tournament if not for Djokovic/Federer.

Not quite sure I follow on the Fed/Djoko. Muzz wouldn't have Fed in his way in all 8 losses to Djoko. Also, Roddick did pretty well vs. Novak h2h

Oh that's the point. Well Murray has been very reliable against the rest of the field most of the time. More than Roddick for sure, that's why the finals count is 11>5 in the Brit's favor, and surely nobody can blame this huge difference on poor unlucky Arod playing in peak Fed's era.

At the time Roddick established that H2H lead, Federer, Nadal dominated it against Djokovic while Murray also did alright in that department. Roddick quit not long after while we know what Novak's H2H with the rest of the Big 4 looks like now. Huge shame he experienced playing the 2011-16 beast only once.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

in that 4 year period when Fed could do no wrong, sure. However, regardless of how you evaluate Murray's top level you can't deny his consistency is quite amazing. His last Wimbledon title came when he was what, 29? Fed already started slowing down at 26-27, even at Wimbledon he started having poor showings like in 2010/2011. Murray would have had his window of opportunity somewhere.

I don't see Murray winning Wimbledon in any of those years. I think the beatings from Fed alone would crush him worse than the ones coming from Novak, much like they did to Fed's competitors from his own generation.

I give Murray a small chance at winning something before Fed took hold but after he went into full gear, if they were the same age, it's lights out.

You have to remember that Murray already had surgery by the time he was 29 too -- and even with the technology of today he took a while to get back to top level.

The technology of yesteryear would not favor him in the least.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And Roddick would never win three Slams in Djokovic's or any era.

IIRC you showed some sympathy towards him in the past. At least I am consistent when it comes to Roddick.

Roddick would certainly win 3 slams if Fed wasn't in his way. On the other hand, I find it hard to see Murray winning more than he did in other eras.

I showed him sympathy back when people said he'd be slamless. Now that people are saying he's some ATG that deserves 6+ slams he only gets my worst side.

 

[I Am Finnish]

Fedr

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yup, If I remember it correctly even Nadal asked Fed is he OK (or something similar) at the net when he trounced him in IW which was pure class from his side.

I do think most pros would have given up at that point of their career but instead Fed switched to a bigger racquet, a very bold career move for a guy with 17 slams. Luck and talent are overused terms when it comes to Fed even though undoubtebly he has had ample of both in his career. The sheer mental strength it takes to reinvent your game in your 30s and discard the tool that won you so many big titles is quite something in my eyes.

Yes, Nadal did indeed ask Federer if he was OK when the met at the net. Classy from Nadal, but he obviously knew, having played Federer so much that something was not right.

 

[zagor]

I don't see Murray winning Wimbledon in any of those years. I think the beatings from Fed alone would crush him worse than the ones coming from Novak, much like they did to Fed's competitors from his own generation.

I give Murray a small chance at winning something before Fed took hold but after he went into full gear, if they were the same age, it's lights out.

You have to remember that Murray already had surgery by the time he was 29 too -- and even with the technology of today he took a while to get back to top level.

The technology of yesteryear would not favor him in the least.

Good points but maybe Murray would have developed as a more aggressive player to reflect faster and lower bouncing surfaces of that period, it's not a coincidence so many young players are grinders as opposed to shotmakers today. Considering how physical Murray's game is, he hasn't been that injury prone and as such I could see him having a longer career if he forced the issue more often.

Either way, I don't put Murray's top/peak level above Roddick's on HC/grass but he undboutebly put himself in contention more.

 

[zagor]

Yes, Nadal did indeed ask Federer if he was OK when the met at the net. Classy from Nadal, but he obviously knew, having played Federer so much that something was not right.

Most of the pros are usually good at playing through injuries but sometimes it's just too obvious. Back injury can't be obscured, you can see it right away in player's serve and groundstrokes.

No doubt Nadal would pick up on a lot more subtle physical discomforts from Fed (and vice versa) but this time it was obvious to the vieweres as well. Kinda like 2014 AO final for Nadal, it was very clear he had a back injury that time.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Most of the pros are usually good at playing through injuries but sometimes it's just too obvious. Back injury can't be obscured, you can see it right away in player's serve and groundstrokes.

No doubt Nadal would pick up on a lot more subtle physical discomforts from Fed (and vice versa) but this time it was obvious to the vieweres as well. Kinda like 2014 AO final for Nadal, it was very clear he had a back injury that time.

It was clearly obvious. I remember the round before when Federer hit a serve and you could tell immediately he was in trouble. As soon as I saw it, I said - That's it. He's done.

I recall reading somewhere where he was asked why he did not pull out, he said everyone was looking forward to the Fedal match, he just did not want to pull out and disapoint those that bought tickets.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Good points but maybe Murray would have developed as a more aggressive player to reflect faster and lower bouncing surfaces of that period, it's not a coincidence so many young players are grinders as opposed to shotmakers today. Considering how physical Murray's game is, he hasn't been that injury prone and as such I could see him having a longer career if he forced the issue more often.

Either way, I don't put Murray's top/peak level above Roddick's on HC/grass but he undboutebly put himself in contention more.

I don't know, I do know that defensive baseline tennis was a widespread phenomenon among juniors even around the time Fed was one. So it's hard to say, really.

Murray hasn't been as injury prone, true. Maybe that's due to genetics, maybe it's due to luck -- but we cannot say for certain the same events would have played out the same way in a different time period.

Murray has been very fortunate to have a team consisting of some of the best medical practitioners of today (in tennis). In Roger's time, I don't think their teams were as expansive as today.

Then again Henman and Moya were still top ten players in 2005 -- so it wasn't as unusual to see older players do well as what's extrapolated on today.

I still don't see Murray getting over the mental fatigue of taking beating after beating -- even when bringing his best stuff. If we put 25 year old Murray against 25 year old Federer he wouldn't have had that 2012 US Open moment. Instead, he'd have had to deal with the pressure of defeat and also the pressure of expectation again and again.

I think 2009 Wimbledon showed what a rivalry between Murray and Roddick might have looked like at times. Fierce battles, but Murray wouldn't always win by virtue of being the "better player" on paper. Roddick could play ball, too.

 

[zagor]

It was clearly obvious. I remember the round before when Federer hit a serve and you could tell immediately he was in trouble. As soon as I saw it, I said - That's it. He's done.

I recall reading somewhere where he was asked why he did not pull out, he said everyone was looking forward to the Fedal match, he just did not want to pull out and disapoint those that bought tickets.

The downside of being the biggest draw in tennis. He gets crowd adulation and plays on show courts but is also held to higher standards than most.

i definitely give him credit for dragging himself to face Nadal so many times in 2013, wasn't good for H2H maybe but H2H isn't everything in tennis.

 

[zagor]

I don't know, I do know that defensive baseline tennis was a widespread phenomenon among juniors even around the time Fed was one. So it's hard to say, really.

Murray hasn't been as injury prone, true. Maybe that's due to genetics, maybe it's due to luck -- but we cannot say for certain the same events would have played out the same way in a different time period.

Murray has been very fortunate to have a team consisting of some of the best medical practitioners of today (in tennis). In Roger's time, I don't think their teams were as expansive as today.

Then again Henman and Moya were still top ten players in 2005 -- so it wasn't as unusual to see older players do well as what's extrapolated on today.

I still don't see Murray getting over the mental fatigue of taking beating after beating -- even when bringing his best stuff. If we put 25 year old Murray against 25 year old Federer he wouldn't have had that 2012 US Open moment. Instead, he'd have had to deal with the pressure of defeat and also the pressure of expectation again and again.

I think 2009 Wimbledon showed what a rivalry between Murray and Roddick might have looked like at times. Fierce battles, but Murray wouldn't always win by virtue of being the "better player" on paper. Roddick could play ball, too.

Fair enough, I see your points.

Their 2009 Wimbledon SF is indeed an underrated match. Murray was a bad match-up for Roddick but the latter was a better competitor IMO. Would have been something to see 2003/2004 Roddick take on 2012/2013 Murray on grass.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The downside of being the biggest draw in tennis. He gets crowd adulation and plays on show courts but is also held to higher standards than most.

i definitely give him credit for dragging himself to face Nadal so many times in 2013, wasn't good for H2H maybe but H2H isn't everything in tennis.

Well from that point on, his 2013 season was over.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Fair enough, I see your points.

Their 2009 Wimbledon SF is indeed an underrated match. Murray was a bad match-up for Roddick but the latter was a better competitor IMO. Would have been something to see 2003/2004 Roddick take on 2012/2013 Murray on grass.

Most likely a five set tussle like Wawrinka - Murray at Roland Garros.

I really miss those today at Wimbledon, those QF/SF 5-set tussles between top players. Agassi V Rafter was some excellent stuff.

 

[zagor]

Most likely a five set tussle like Wawrinka - Murray at Roland Garros.

I really miss those today at Wimbledon, those QF/SF 5-set tussles between top players. Agassi V Rafter was some excellent stuff.

I can't speak for the whole tennis history or everyone's tastes but as far as I'm concerned, nothing at Wimbledon was quite as good as those Agassi-Rafter Wimbledon SFs in back-to-back years (1999 was decent as well but too straightfoward, 2000 and 2001 were amazing).

Shame we'll likely never again see such an extreme clash of playing styles in a big slam match. People don't know what they've missed.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I can't speak for the whole tennis history or everyone's tastes but as far as I'm concerned, nothing at Wimbledon was quite as good as those Agassi-Rafter Wimbledon SFs in back-to-back years (1999 was decent as well but too straightfoward, 2000 and 2001 were amazing).

Shame we'll likely never again see such an extreme clash of playing styles in a big slam match. People don't know what they've missed.

Which is why I use Youtube as a time machine, trying to find as many old classic matches as I can to enjoy and relive again -- because today the closest we have to "contrasting styles" is Federer V Nadal/Djokovic/Murray.

But it isn't the same as watching a pure S&V against a pure baseliner.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Here's something you (and others) might enjoy though.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Mugray would go slamless if he had to deal with peak Fed though.

(Your dislike for Roddick is about equal to my dislike for Murray ).

Baby “Mugray” deals with peak Fed quite admirably here:

 

[SLD76]

It's not even close. Federer basically soul crushed Roddick's entire career.

I mean didn't Roddick throw away all but a handful of his titles won just a year ago ?


You think he does that if Fed never existed and he won a handful more slams, masters and maybe a YEC?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Baby “Mugray” deals with peak Fed quite admirably here:

Yeah, a match where Roger was tired from winning title after title. Had to have a low at some point.

Guess Jaime Yzaga gave peak Pete Sampras trouble then, eh?

Let's post all their Grand Slam meetings shall we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAqynOD_-AA&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAqugIxCK58

Fed lost like what, 5 sets over the course of 6 matches? Yeah man, Murray gives Federer SO much trouble.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

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.

At least against Fed, Murray a far more dangerous opponent.
Fed had a losing record against Murray before 2014. Murray has never been an easy opponent really.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I mean didn't Roddick throw away all but a handful of his titles won just a year ago ?


You think he does that if Fed never existed and he won a handful more slams, masters and maybe a YEC?

Nah because Roddick only did that to keep his ranking up at the time. Those titles didn't mean that much to him.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

At least against Fed, Murray a far more dangerous opponent.
Fed had a losing record against Murray before 2014. Murray has never been an easy opponent really.

Not really.

1-5 record in Grand Slams with 5 sets lost over the course of those matches.

Murray was never a dangerous opponent for Federer when it mattered. You can stop now.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Definitely Roddick. He didn't receive two Slams as a gift from Federer.

 

[OddJack]

Djoker damage to Murray was physical. He destroyed his hip.

Rodge damage to Roddick was mental. He made him say goodbye to tennis.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Definitely Roddick. He didn't receive two Slams as a gift from Federer.

So Murray never “earned” a win against Djokovic? 2013 Wimbledon was “given”?

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Yeah, a match where Roger was tired from winning title after title. Had to have a low at some point.

Guess Jaime Yzaga gave peak Pete Sampras trouble then, eh?

Let's post all their Grand Slam meetings shall we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAqugIxCK58

Fed lost like what, 5 sets over the course of 6 matches? Yeah man, Murray gives Federer SO much trouble.

Lol. So Fed was “tired” in the 2006 match from winning too much? He won a lot in 2006, so why wasn’t he tired more?

Look, I’m probably almost as big a Fed fan as you, but we have to give credit where credit is due. Fed fans trash Nadal fans for making injury excuses when Nadal loses. Let’s not make excuses for Fed.

With regard to big matches, you’re right that the GS record shows that Fed is clearly boss in the rivalry. I’m just saying that Murray was always a much tougher opponent for Fed than Roddick.

Here’s another big match that Murray won against Fed. Yes, Fed was tired from Delpo SF match, but Murray was too good here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ioa77BylVs

 

[fedtennisphan]

Lol. So Fed was “tired” in the 2006 match from winning too much? He won a lot in 2006, so why wasn’t he tired more?

Look, I’m probably almost as big a Fed fan as you, but we have to give credit where credit is due. Fed fans trash Nadal fans for making injury excuses when Nadal loses. Let’s not make excuses for Fed.

With regard to big matches, you’re right that the GS record shows that Fed is clearly boss in the rivalry. I’m just saying that Murray was always a much tougher opponent for Fed than Roddick.

Here’s another big match that Murray won against Fed. Yes, Fed was tired from Delpo SF match, but Murray was too good here:

Okay, this me giving credit where credit is due. Both Andy’s 20>3 20>1.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lol. So Fed was “tired” in the 2006 match from winning too much? He won a lot in 2006, so why wasn’t he tired more?

Look, I’m probably almost as big a Fed fan as you, but we have to give credit where credit is due. Fed fans trash Nadal fans for making injury excuses when Nadal loses. Let’s not make excuses for Fed.

With regard to big matches, you’re right that the GS record shows that Fed is clearly boss in the rivalry. I’m just saying that Murray was always a much tougher opponent for Fed than Roddick.

Here’s another big match that Murray won against Fed. Yes, Fed was tired from Delpo SF match, but Murray was too good here:

There is no "credit" to give. Murray wilted whenever he played Federer in big matches and only got him when the pressure was lower in other sanctioned events.

Federer V Murray in a GS match was almost a foregone conclusion; and once Federer started to care more about events outside Grand Slams Murray was hammered then too.

 

[D.Nalby12]

So Murray never “earned” a win against Djokovic? 2013 Wimbledon was “given”?

Call it whatever you want, my point is - Federer didn't allow Roddick to win a single Slam against him while Djokovic allowed two wins. Hence more damage done to Roddick.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

There is no "credit" to give. Murray wilted whenever he played Federer in big matches and only got him when the pressure was lower in other sanctioned events.

Federer V Murray in a GS match was almost a foregone conclusion; and once Federer started to care more about events outside Grand Slams Murray was hammered then too.

So Fed used to not care about Masters events? Why did he win so many of them then in 2005-2006?

 

[Red Rick]

And Roddick would never win three Slams in Djokovic's or any era.

IIRC you showed some sympathy towards him in the past. At least I am consistent when it comes to Roddick.

Oh that's the point. Well Murray has been very reliable against the rest of the field most of the time. More than Roddick for sure, that's why the finals count is 11>5 in the Brit's favor, and surely nobody can blame this huge difference on poor unlucky Arod playing in peak Fed's era.

At the time Roddick established that H2H lead, Federer, Nadal dominated it against Djokovic while Murray also did alright in that department. Roddick quit not long after while we know what Novak's H2H with the rest of the Big 4 looks like now. Huge shame he experienced playing the 2011-16 beast only once.

I'd have picked peak Roddick for 3 Slams in the 5 Slam period between AO 2017-AO 2018. I don't see anyone being a favorite vs him on a HC slam in this period honestly.

 

[Sysyphus]

I'd have picked peak Roddick for 3 Slams in the 5 Slam period between AO 2017-AO 2018. I don't see anyone being a favorite vs him on a HC slam in this period honestly.

to Roddick's chagrin, peak Müller is still playing

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So Fed used to not care about Masters events? Why did he win so many of them then in 2005-2006?

Who was going to stop him? Roddick had already had his soul beaten into the ground and most the other competition felt the same way.

Federer didn't prioritize the events like he did Grand Slams which is why Murray was never really a problem in them as opposed to lesser events.

 

[Red Rick]

to Roddick's chagrin, peak Müller is still playing

Roddick was injured going into the '05 USO

 

[Chanwan]

And Roddick would never win three Slams in Djokovic's or any era.

Oh that's the point. Well Murray has been very reliable against the rest of the field most of the time. More than Roddick for sure, that's why the finals count is 11>5 in the Brit's favor, and surely nobody can blame this huge difference on poor unlucky Arod playing in peak Fed's era.

At the time Roddick established that H2H lead, Federer, Nadal dominated it against Djokovic while Murray also did alright in that department. Roddick quit not long after while we know what Novak's H2H with the rest of the Big 4 looks like now. Huge shame he experienced playing the 2011-16 beast only once.

Remove Fed from Roddick's era and he wins 3 or more.

Yes, Murray is the better player and the higher ranked player. But the point of this thread is who was hurt the most. And given how much Murray has been able to win against Djokovic and how little Andy was able to win against Fed and how each of them would likely have faired in the 8 slams, where they lost to Djoko and Fed respectively, the point still stands: Roddick was hurt more.

And sure, Novak did get (a lot) better, but Roddick wasn't exactly peak Roddick either, when he beat him. Novak was the higher ranked player in the vast majority of their matches. And if Karlovic and Isner are able to sneak in wins vs. post-2011 Djoko, surely Roddick can too

 

[Sysyphus]

Roddick was injured going into the '05 USO

that was the peakiest of peak roddicks:

The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final. Arriving in New York armed with four titles on the year, a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open, and a serve so big he left a bruise mark when blasting one to the body, most players predicted Roddick was a true contender to regain the title.

Instead, he was reduced to making sense of an excruciating loss. Fighting off five of six break points he faced, Roddick did not play poorly; Muller played a masterful match.

"I don't really remember a loss where I've felt this bad afterward," Roddick said. "I love playing here. I've probably had the best practice week I've had in lead-up and it just didn't translate tonight. I thought he played very well tonight. I just felt like the whole time I was trying to find something as opposed to just having it. I normally take control of the situation a little bit more than that whereas he was taking the first strike tonight."​

 

[NatF]

that was the peakiest of peak roddicks:

The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final. Arriving in New York armed with four titles on the year, a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open, and a serve so big he left a bruise mark when blasting one to the body, most players predicted Roddick was a true contender to regain the title.

Instead, he was reduced to making sense of an excruciating loss. Fighting off five of six break points he faced, Roddick did not play poorly; Muller played a masterful match.

"I don't really remember a loss where I've felt this bad afterward," Roddick said. "I love playing here. I've probably had the best practice week I've had in lead-up and it just didn't translate tonight. I thought he played very well tonight. I just felt like the whole time I was trying to find something as opposed to just having it. I normally take control of the situation a little bit more than that whereas he was taking the first strike tonight."​

The reporter obviously missed the trademark post-match Arod sarcasm.

 

[Red Rick]

that was the peakiest of peak roddicks:

The American roared through the summer posting a 25-3 record, winning Queen's Club, reaching the Wimbledon final (where he fell to Roger Federer), taking the Washington, D.C. title, and falling to Federer in the Cincinnati final. Arriving in New York armed with four titles on the year, a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open, and a serve so big he left a bruise mark when blasting one to the body, most players predicted Roddick was a true contender to regain the title.

Instead, he was reduced to making sense of an excruciating loss. Fighting off five of six break points he faced, Roddick did not play poorly; Muller played a masterful match.

"I don't really remember a loss where I've felt this bad afterward," Roddick said. "I love playing here. I've probably had the best practice week I've had in lead-up and it just didn't translate tonight. I thought he played very well tonight. I just felt like the whole time I was trying to find something as opposed to just having it. I normally take control of the situation a little bit more than that whereas he was taking the first strike tonight."​

I'm sorry. I must have missed the memo where peak was defined as the training a week before a tournament and not the level in the actual match itself.

Nah, Roddick's highest level of consistent play was clearly in 2003/2004, in 2005 he had very good results still but he wasn't that much of a threat in the biggest matches. After that he just got a lot streakier

 

[Red Rick]

Remove Fed from Roddick's era and he wins 3 or more.

Yes, Murray is the better player and the higher ranked player. But the point of this thread is who was hurt the most. And given how much Murray has been able to win against Djokovic and how little Andy was able to win against Fed and how each of them would likely have faired in the 8 slams, where they lost to Djoko and Fed respectively, the point still stands: Roddick was hurt more.

And sure, Novak did get (a lot) better, but Roddick wasn't exactly peak Roddick either, when he beat him. Novak was the higher ranked player in the vast majority of their matches. And if Karlovic and Isner are able to sneak in wins vs. post-2011 Djoko, surely Roddick can too

Yeah, I always just thought that Djokovic couldn't read Roddick's serve well, so when Roddick was playing well he had trouble breaking and Djokovic didn't really play agressive enough shred Roddick from the baseline so Roddick basically got to wait for the right shot

 

[Towser83]

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

Jan 2016 Fed is not July 2016 Fed, between which he had knee surgery. Fed looked in decent shape in Australia, he even managed to the a set off Djokovic which he didnt do in 2008 or 2011. Wasn't his best form maybe, but given their slam h2h history, I'd favour Federer