Razer
G.O.A.T.
Tragedy, because Roddick on his fav Surface ran into peak Fed at Wimbledon 4 times while Med ran into a 34 year old Djokovic who had CYGS pressure.
Last edited:
Who is greater between Roddick and Medvedev?
- Thread starter clout
- Start date
Tragedy, because Roddick on his fav Surface ran into peak Fed at Wimbledon 4 times while Med ran into a 34 year old Djokovic who had CYGS pressure.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Where do you get those stats from? Meddy's win today takes him to 401-169, per the ATP website. They also have Roddick at 612-213.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Fixed.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Hall of Fame
The early 2000’s were weak, but they were also a part of a massive transition to poly strings and court speed homogenization. Players were figuring out how to adapt. There has been stability in tennis ever since, a stability that allowed players like Medvedev to be relatively consistent across most of the tour.
To then simplify the strength of players who peaked almost 20 years apart to “more points = better” reeks of naïveté.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you are right. Players' consistency improved after 2005-06, homogenization was more deep rooted.
Roddick's Canada-Cincinnati double in 2003 was an outstanding achievement.
Agassi (1995), Rafter (1998) and Nadal (2013) also pulled that off. But Roddick was required to win 12 matches across those 2 events (they both had 64 player draws in 2003 and from 2000-2006), while the others were required to win 10 matches (they both had 56 player draws in the 90s and from 2007 onwards)
The 2003 Cincy final vs. Fish was Roddick's 12th match in 13 days (he had a Tuesday start in Montreal), and his 20th match in 26 days following his title run in Indianpolis and 3 matches in DC.
I agree with many previous comments that 2003 was a very closely contested year, and also an exciting one. Agassi was a very strong 'year end no. 4'.
Agassi (1995), Rafter (1998) and Nadal (2013) also pulled that off. But Roddick was required to win 12 matches across those 2 events (they both had 64 player draws in 2003 and from 2000-2006), while the others were required to win 10 matches (they both had 56 player draws in the 90s and from 2007 onwards)
The 2003 Cincy final vs. Fish was Roddick's 12th match in 13 days (he had a Tuesday start in Montreal), and his 20th match in 26 days following his title run in Indianpolis and 3 matches in DC.
I agree with many previous comments that 2003 was a very closely contested year, and also an exciting one. Agassi was a very strong 'year end no. 4'.
Last edited:
Racquet_smash
Hall of Fame
I don't think Medvedev would be capable of great performances like WB04 or 03 summer streak. And i definitely can see Roddick taking down that version of Djokovic in a US Open final.
My gripe with Medvedev is that besides being a clearly one surface pony he doesn't have many tournaments where he kept a consistently high level for the entirety of it. For example, he played his best semifinal ever in a slam at 23 US Open and then played the worst final only 2 days afterwards. Roddick wasn't so floating in his best days
My gripe with Medvedev is that besides being a clearly one surface pony he doesn't have many tournaments where he kept a consistently high level for the entirety of it. For example, he played his best semifinal ever in a slam at 23 US Open and then played the worst final only 2 days afterwards. Roddick wasn't so floating in his best days
mike danny
Bionic Poster
If Med was indeed greater, he would have more than 1 slam in this era. Pretty simple
Garro
Rookie
Haven't read the whole thread here, but I do like the comparison.
Both players are a bit one dimensional. One won slam each but reached many other slam finals.
And of course they both would probably have won more slams in a different era.
I go with Roddick slightly. Why? Roddick at his absolute peak could definitely have beaten down the Djokovic in the 2021 US Open final.
I think he wins something like 6-3, 7-6, 6-1.
Even if we pretend Wimbledon is Med's best slam, I don't think he pushes Fed as hard as Rod did in 09. Or even 04 for that matter.
And if you want to call 2009 Wimbledon a 'choke' from Roddick, I'm sure Med would be capable of choking from that position as well, given what was on the line
Both players are a bit one dimensional. One won slam each but reached many other slam finals.
And of course they both would probably have won more slams in a different era.
I go with Roddick slightly. Why? Roddick at his absolute peak could definitely have beaten down the Djokovic in the 2021 US Open final.
I think he wins something like 6-3, 7-6, 6-1.
Even if we pretend Wimbledon is Med's best slam, I don't think he pushes Fed as hard as Rod did in 09. Or even 04 for that matter.
And if you want to call 2009 Wimbledon a 'choke' from Roddick, I'm sure Med would be capable of choking from that position as well, given what was on the line
GuyForget
Professional
who are talking about here? that doesnt fit Murray or Roddick?
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Medvedev
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
Med was better on clay. Roddick better on the other 2. So advantage Roddick
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Yes and the key thing is Medvedev is not a real contender, even in this super weak era, on clay. So while yes he is better than Roddick on clay, it does not amount to much, when he still isn't even a real contender on clay himself.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
What a surprise the only people trying to argue for Medvedev are Djokovic fanboys, some with "Nole" or "Djoko" in their usernames.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
It’s close, but Andy did more against top players than Daniil. I say this *as* a person that was a Roddick fan, and a Med fan now.
But they are very similar in the respect that they were less talented than almost everyone they faced, but had great success anyways because they always fought their butt off and had tons of grit (obviously Andy had a gift for serving too).
But after today I’m logging off from the sport again for a while, so do with that what you will.
But they are very similar in the respect that they were less talented than almost everyone they faced, but had great success anyways because they always fought their butt off and had tons of grit (obviously Andy had a gift for serving too).
But after today I’m logging off from the sport again for a while, so do with that what you will.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, but he’s never been close to winning a slam on clay or grass
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I guess then tennis is full of one trick surface ponies or zero surface ponies, if the requirement is that you must either win a slam or be close to winning it.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Medvedev is a bum.
Dominic & Andrey
Legend
Voted tie.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Realistically speaking Med is a 1 surface pony because he was never close to wining W or FO.
Roddick was close to winning W a few times and on HC they are about par.
So on Grass alone Roddick is above Med, this thread should not exist
Hitman
Bionic Poster
It still also means most professional players are basically not even 1 surface ponies because they never got close to winning a slam.
Medvedev has a Rome title, the second biggest title on clay, to be that isn't one trick.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Ok lets be fair to everyone (including Murray and Med) to see where they stand in terms of Surface versatility
Reached at least 1 GS Final on 3 surfaces - Murray
Reached at least 1 GS Final on 2 Surfaces - Roddick, Hewitt, Zverev, Wawrinka
Reached at least 1 GS Final on 1 surface - Medvedev
Hitman
Bionic Poster
So I guess guys like Rublev have zero surface.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
True, but I meant in comparison to Roddick
Razer
G.O.A.T.
lol, our bar is a bit high, so as per that yes Rublev has not reached that cut off on any surface.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
That's like saying Sampras sucks in comparison to the Big 3.
Its not exactly some universal measurement.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
I think this is something we all forgot for a while but things are coming back to normal now.
pierceforehands
Professional
Medvedev better than Roddick at the US Open? April Fools is long over honey, perhaps you have been in a coma almost 3 months.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
So no surface trick pony it is.
Everybody knows how to play on every surface, if we play Nadal indoors on carpets then he will destroy us by double bageling us, but this does not mean that he is a great player indoors... SImilarly it is about a frame of reference, even Roddick is a good player on clay but is he fit to be called good in our discussion for clay? Certainly not because we have certain high standards, similarly even Med is not that great on clay or grass, but yes like you said he has won rome, has reach SF at W... so he knows how to play everywhere, he is a pro player who was/is still one of the best in the world, so why not? But compared to Roddick def he is a 1 surface pony and maybe Rublev is not great on any surface unfortunately...
Similar threads
- Poll
