Who is stronger peak Wawrinka or peak Roddick?

Who is stronger peak Wawrinka or peak Roddick?

  • Wawrinka

    Votes: 71 74.7%
  • Roddick

    Votes: 24 25.3%

  • Total voters
    95

FD3S

Hall of Fame
#55
Physically stronger? Hard not to go with Stan, he's always had a pretty solid build.

In terms of game, IMO Roddick takes fast HC and grass, Stan takes slow HC and clay. Stan's groundstrokes are long and need a little more prep time compared to most players on tour, and the extreme grips he has don't help that; I remember him returning the Gasquet serve adequately at best during their Wimbledon QF encounter (tied for the farthest he ever got), and that was on significantly beat up grass that already played slower/truer against a player with a serve that was far from elite.
 
#61
I’m not talking about who is the better player. Just who is stronger overall.
Someone who won 3 slams by defeating Nadal, Djokovic and in one he defeated both (something fed could never do that) is not stronger than 1 time slam champion who lucked out in semi and then won against Juan Carlos Ferrero ? Seriously, is this even an argument?
 
#62
Wawrinka, no doubt. He defeated prime Djokovic in 3 Grand Slam matches (AO 2014, RG 2015 and USO 2016). Roddick never defeated prime Federer in any Grand Slam match.
Sorry but Wawa went down like a chump against any version Fed on non-clay like 8 out of 10 of their matches, with very few decent showings. A Peak Fed vs Wawa match would not be fun.
 
#63
Initially this was a close one but the more I thought about it, it really isn't close at all, my vote goes to Stan by far. No way can you pick a one dimensional player with a big serve and a big forehand against a guy who has an excellent all around game, a monster backhand and who has competed against much much stiffer competition. And he's a huge big match player against guys better than him. Roddick was a bully beating up guys that he was supposed to beat.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#64
Wawrinka, no doubt. He defeated prime Djokovic in 3 Grand Slam matches (AO 2014, RG 2015 and USO 2016). Roddick never defeated prime Federer in any Grand Slam match.
what that shows is prime Fed > prime Djoko and Stan is a tougher matchup for Djokovic in slams than Roddick is for Fed.
OTOH Roddick has 3 wins over Fed on HC, Stan has 0.
This is with Stan getting so many shots at past his prime Federer, unlike Roddick.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#67
Someone who won 3 slams by defeating Nadal, Djokovic and in one he defeated both (something fed could never do that) is not stronger than 1 time slam champion who lucked out in semi and then won against Juan Carlos Ferrero ? Seriously, is this even an argument?
Nalbandian in USO 03 was considerably tougher than Nadal in AO 14 whom Stan beat. Heck, you could argue he was tougher or atleast on same level as Djoko in RG 15 final.

Yes, the win over AO 14 djoko from Stan was his best win against a tough opponent and better win than any Roddick has had in a slam, but that's one win.

Ferrero was in excellent form at USO 03. Beat Hewitt and Agassi b2b >> but then you wouldn't have a clue about that would you ?

Roddick's peak easily eclipses that of Stan at USO and at Wimbledon, just as Stan's eclipses that of Roddick at AO and RG.

prime Federer was tougher than prime Djokovic, as much as you'd like to delude yourself otherwise. :D:D
Heck Stan still hasn't got a win over Fed on HC, even with so many chances vs past his prime Fed.

Roddick was 5-4 vs Djokovic including 1-1 in slams. He'd have multiple slam wins vs Djokovic just like Stan had they played more prime to prime.
Wawrinka has 3 wins in 20 matches vs Nadal as opposed to Roddick having 3 wins in 10 matches vs nadal, including 3-5 h2h outside of clay.
Stan hadn't even taken a set off Nadal before AO 2014 anywhere.
 
Last edited:
#69
The OP is asking about physical strength, I think.

2 extremely good candidates here.

Roddick with shockingly high pound-for-pound strength and explosiveness.

He would eclipse Wawrinka in both those areas in my opinion.

In all other areas I would say Wawrinka would be the stronger of the two.
 
#71
Huh. Genuinely didn't know that Stan played Fed 25 times - learn something new every day!
Yeah, younger fans here forget that there was a lot of tennis before 2011. They forget that Djokovic is not even part of Fed's era. Fed already had 16 majors in 2011 at the time Djokovic only had one major.

16 majors vs 1 major, how can anyone say they are part of the same era?
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
#72
Yeah, younger fans here forget that there was a lot of tennis before 2011. They forget that Djokovic is not even part of Fed's era. Fed already had 16 majors in 2011 at the time Djokovic only had one major.

16 majors vs 1 major, how can anyone say they are part of the same era?
I can't really say this in a way that's not going to knock Stan, so screw it - I didn't bother keeping up with pre-Norman Wawrinka a ton because pre-Norman Wawrinka was very, very forgettable in terms of results. He'd take a scalp here and there, but truth be told he was an afterthought a lot of the time... plus it really didn't help that another Swiss guy was racking up accolades left, right, and center.
 
#73
I can't really say this in a way that's not going to knock Stan, so screw it - I didn't bother keeping up with pre-Norman Wawrinka a ton because pre-Norman Wawrinka was very, very forgettable in terms of results. He'd take a scalp here and there, but truth be told he was an afterthought a lot of the time... plus it really didn't help that another Swiss guy was racking up accolades left, right, and center.
Things were the same as today, the only difference is that Fed stopped Wawrinka so many times like he did to Roddick. Without prime Fed, Wawa would win his slams a lot sooner.

So, it's nothing special that Wawa or Murray are doing, it's just that Fed slowed down, they are just like Roddick or Hewitt. Plus it helped them that Fed was playing with inferior racket and also needed a few years to adjust.

It also helps that Wawrinka doesn't have to deal with Davydenko/Berdych/Tsonga in their peaks. My point is that in terms of ability, Stan isn't showing anything new, he always had this game. Heck even Ferrer would win a few RG titles if Rafa slowed down like that.
 
#74
Nalbandian in USO 03 was considerably tougher than Nadal in AO 14 whom Stan beat. Heck, you could argue he was tougher or atleast on same level as Djoko in RG 15 final.

Yes, the win over AO 14 djoko from Stan was his best win against a tough opponent and better win than any Roddick has had in a slam, but that's one win.

Ferrero was in excellent form at USO 03. Beat Hewitt and Agassi b2b >> but then you wouldn't have a clue about that would you ?

Roddick's peak easily eclipses that of Stan at USO and at Wimbledon, just as Stan's eclipses that of Roddick at AO and RG.

prime Federer was tougher than prime Djokovic, as much as you'd like to delude yourself otherwise. :D:D
Heck Stan still hasn't got a win over Fed on HC, even with so many chances vs past his prime Fed.

Roddick was 5-4 vs Djokovic including 1-1 in slams. He'd have multiple slam wins vs Djokovic just like Stan had they played more prime to prime.
Wawrinka has 3 wins in 20 matches vs Nadal as opposed to Roddick having 3 wins in 10 matches vs nadal, including 3-5 h2h outside of clay.
Stan hadn't even taken a set off Nadal before AO 2014 anywhere.
Nalbandian tougher than Nadal? Kid go home and ask your idol fed who is tough . Wawa did something Fed could never do and you're telling us Roddick is stronger. Can't take you seriously.
 
#75
Wawrinka. Roddick was a joke player.
Didn't you hear abmk said beating Nalbandian is tougher than beating Nadal in final of a slam tougher than beating boyh Djokovic and Nadal in a slam ,He could do something his hero Roger couldn't do beating Ferrero and Nalbandian tougher than beating Nadal and Djokovic ,one pair hold 0 1 slam combined and other has 15+17 slams together.
 
#76
Didn't you hear abmk said beating Nalbandian is tougher than beating Nadal in final of a slam tougher than beating boyh Djokovic and Nadal in a slam ,He could do something his hero Roger couldn't do beating Ferrero and Nalbandian tougher than beating Nadal and Djokovic ,one pair hold 0 1 slam combined and other has 15+17 slams together.
So, you say the guy who has more slams is tougher to beat? This means Federer is the toughest to beat?
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#77
The OP is asking about physical strength, I think.

2 extremely good candidates here.

Roddick with shockingly high pound-for-pound strength and explosiveness.

He would eclipse Wawrinka in both those areas in my opinion.

In all other areas I would say Wawrinka would be the stronger of the two.
99% sure Wawrinka would lift more in everything

95% sure Roddick would throw more or jump higher.

Not sure who'd win a 100m dash but I've always thought young Roddick was deceptively quick.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#78
Didn't you hear abmk said beating Nalbandian is tougher than beating Nadal in final of a slam tougher than beating boyh Djokovic and Nadal in a slam ,He could do something his hero Roger couldn't do beating Ferrero and Nalbandian tougher than beating Nadal and Djokovic ,one pair hold 0 1 slam combined and other has 15+17 slams together.
I said nalbandian in USO 03 semi was tougher than Nadal in AO 14 final and he was. There is a lot of difference b/w specific performances and evaluating players a whole.
Get that instead of making a joke out of yourself by propping up performances like Nadal of AO 14 final and AO 19 final.

As far as fed beating djokovic and nadal is concerned, if Nadal played in RG 11 final like he did in AO 14 final, only an absolute numbnut would say fed wouldn't win.

oh and fed would've beaten nadal in AO 07, USO 07, USO 09 for sure had Nadal actually made it to him.
I'd say USO 08 and Wim 12 as well.

Oh and I trust you learnt something Stan and Roddick vs Federer/Nadal/Djokovic there. :)
 
Last edited:
#79
If by "peak" we mean the best a player can play; Wawrinka may be the best "peak" player ever. When he was on, Wawrinka was untouchable. Unfortunately, Wawrinka's peaks came in points and sometimes games or sets but almost never for an entire tournament never mind for an entire season.
Peak Wawrinka > Peak Roddick that should not be any question but what you wrote also stretches it. These mythical Stanimal typically only showed up in slams against Djokovic to whom he is a difficult matchup. Against Fedal wawrinka was as useless as you can possibly be. NO version of Wawrinka would ever beat peak Federer or peak Nadal. What you wrote about peak level in games or even points(??) being untouchable is quite moot. Basically every player can be untouchable on individual points. Karlovic is untouchable on most of his serves for every player in history does not always win him matches even against mugs.
 
#80
99% sure Wawrinka would lift more in everything

95% sure Roddick would throw more or jump higher.

Not sure who'd win a 100m dash but I've always thought young Roddick was deceptively quick.
I think it's more about a 20 or 40 metre dash than 100, in a game like tennis.
On th OP, Stanimal is a beast with a higher peak in Slams, no doubt about that.
Roddick has a YE#1, on the back of his 2003 USO series sweep, so has that on Stan.
 
#81
I said nalbandian in USO 03 semi was tougher than Nadal in AO 14 final and he was. Read properly and get a clue.
instead of making a joke out of yourself by propping up performances like Nadal of AO 14 final and AO 19 final.
But you are ignoring the intangibles. Nalbandian can't bring his reputation to the table to intimidate Federer. Rafa just by being there puts extra pressure to Federer based on reputation. That's why this game is mental a lot, so you can't just use stats to determine who was tougher.

Even using stats is flawed. Why? Because let's say Fed's serve % drops. Maybe the opponent was clutch on return so Fed was forced to go for more. Forced / unforced errors is completely subjective. A lot of times defensive players with great serve return will force you to make more errors, yes they are technically called unforced, but that's just semantics.

I know mentality is huge. Have you ever played computer strategy games? I have witnesses this. I had my reputation and when people knew it was me, they played worse. Then I changed my account and they thought I was some random newbie, they played much better. So you see having an ATG in the final probably has some subjective value beyond just his level of play.
 
#83
I think it's more about a 20 or 40 metre dash than 100, in a game like tennis.
On th OP, Stanimal is a beast with a higher peak in Slams, no doubt about that.
Roddick has a YE#1, on the back of his 2003 USO series sweep, so has that on Stan.
You can't determine if Stan has a larger peak because they didn't play the same opponents.

Remember that Roddick has a leading h2h versus Djokovic, so if Roddick played Nole in W final, maybe Roddick would also win 3 majors just like Stan. And Stan's h2h is the same versus Fed than Roddick's h2h, so I don't see how Stan's peak is any bigger, they look the same to me. The only difference is that Djokovic doesn't have the variety to hurt Wawrinka like Fed does and this affects Wawrinka also mentally versus Fed. Plus Fed actually has the power to put Wawrinka on the defensive, Djokovic can't do the same.

So, no, I don't buy that Wawrinka has higher peak than Roddick. Remember that also Murray defeated Nole in two GS finals as well, while he can't do that to Federer. Fed has higher peak than Nole, that's why Wawrinka looks like he has higher peak than Roddick. Or we can argue that Djokovic dropped a bit when Wawrinka beat him, wasn't at his peak either. And Nadal was also injured when Wawa beat him. I think Wawa's peak is overrated, it's due to sheer luck that he has 3 majors and Roddick has 1 major.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#85
But you are ignoring the intangibles. Nalbandian can't bring his reputation to the table to intimidate Federer. Rafa just by being there puts extra pressure to Federer based on reputation. That's why this game is mental a lot, so you can't just use stats to determine who was tougher.

Even using stats is flawed. Why? Because let's say Fed's serve % drops. Maybe the opponent was clutch on return so Fed was forced to go for more. Forced / unforced errors is completely subjective. A lot of times defensive players with great serve return will force you to make more errors, yes they are technically called unforced, but that's just semantics.

I know mentality is huge. Have you ever played computer strategy games? I have witnesses this. I had my reputation and when people knew it was me, they played worse. Then I changed my account and they thought I was some random newbie, they played much better. So you see having an ATG in the final probably has some subjective value beyond just his level of play.
nalbandian was 4-0 vs federer before USO 03 including beating him at the AO that year and at Cincy just before the US Open.
Besides, I was talking about Roddick vs Nalbandian in USO 03.
mentality is one part, but its not the entire thing and it gets overblown on many of the occasions.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#86
I think it's more about a 20 or 40 metre dash than 100, in a game like tennis.
On th OP, Stanimal is a beast with a higher peak in Slams, no doubt about that.
Roddick has a YE#1, on the back of his 2003 USO series sweep, so has that on Stan.
Stan's peak level is lower at Wimbledon and USO.
higher at AO and RG.
so its nowhere near as black and white as Stan's peak being higher in slams.

If their primes were reversed, Roddick could've very well ended up with 3 slams and Stan with 0 or 1. Both matchup better vs Djokovic (Roddick in general and Stan in slams) and Federer was tougher/more consistent at slams in his prime (say from AO 04 to USO 09) as compared to Djokovic (say from AO 11 to USO 16)
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#87
Roddick was my favorite. I dont share the idea that Wawrinka is overal the better player. He got his chances, he took them or more so earned them. This said, Wawrinka would win plenty of matches against Andy out of clay. For example, he completely destroyed him at AO 11, long before Norman got into the picture.

I believe that they are in a similar tier of overal level but one did win more than the other.

And stop with this "peak" level nonsence. Using this logic, Wawrinka is unbeatble when playing at his best ...
Roddick was pretty much Finnish in 2011-2012. That match wasn't a good indication.
 
Last edited:
#88
99% sure Wawrinka would lift more in everything

95% sure Roddick would throw more or jump higher.

Not sure who'd win a 100m dash but I've always thought young Roddick was deceptively quick.
99.9% sure it would be Roddick. Roddick’s anticipation and change of direction and footwork weren’t the greatest, but straight line speed...he was fast and big e oighnenoguh thet he covered a lot of ground.
 
#89
nalbandian was 4-0 vs federer before USO 03 including beating him at the AO that year and at Cincy just before the US Open.
Besides, I was talking about Roddick vs Nalbandian in USO 03.
mentality is one part, but its not the entire thing and it gets overblown on many of the occasions.
Well using the same logic, Davy is 6-1 versus Rafa on HC, would you say Davy is tougher opponent for Nadal on HC than Djokovic or Federer?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#90
Well using the same logic, Davy is 6-1 versus Rafa on HC, would you say Davy is tougher opponent for Nadal on HC than Djokovic or Federer?
Djokovic is something like 19-7 vs Nadal on HC. So no.
As far as fed is concerned, in Bo3 HC yes, davy is tougher for nadal than fed.
Bo5, nadal-davy didn't play. So tougher to say.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#93
Initially this was a close one but the more I thought about it, it really isn't close at all, my vote goes to Stan by far. No way can you pick a one dimensional player with a big serve and a big forehand against a guy who has an excellent all around game, a monster backhand and who has competed against much much stiffer competition. And he's a huge big match player against guys better than him. Roddick was a bully beating up guys that he was supposed to beat.
Basically, he enjoyed a good match-up with Novak and that gave him 3 slams.

His better all around game always got exposed by Fed.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#94
Nalbandian in USO 03 was considerably tougher than Nadal in AO 14 whom Stan beat. Heck, you could argue he was tougher or atleast on same level as Djoko in RG 15 final.

Yes, the win over AO 14 djoko from Stan was his best win against a tough opponent and better win than any Roddick has had in a slam, but that's one win.

Ferrero was in excellent form at USO 03. Beat Hewitt and Agassi b2b >> but then you wouldn't have a clue about that would you ?

Roddick's peak easily eclipses that of Stan at USO and at Wimbledon, just as Stan's eclipses that of Roddick at AO and RG.

prime Federer was tougher than prime Djokovic, as much as you'd like to delude yourself otherwise. :D:D
Heck Stan still hasn't got a win over Fed on HC, even with so many chances vs past his prime Fed.

Roddick was 5-4 vs Djokovic including 1-1 in slams. He'd have multiple slam wins vs Djokovic just like Stan had they played more prime to prime.
Wawrinka has 3 wins in 20 matches vs Nadal as opposed to Roddick having 3 wins in 10 matches vs nadal, including 3-5 h2h outside of clay.
Stan hadn't even taken a set off Nadal before AO 2014 anywhere.
Those who say Roddick wouldn't get a win over Novak in a slam prime for prime are delusional if even Nishikori was able to get one.
 
#96
Djokovic is something like 19-7 vs Nadal on HC. So no.
As far as fed is concerned, in Bo3 HC yes, davy is tougher for nadal than fed.
Bo5, nadal-davy didn't play. So tougher to say.
So, you don't feel that Djokovic and Nadal are on Fed's level of greatness?
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#97
Things were the same as today, the only difference is that Fed stopped Wawrinka so many times like he did to Roddick. Without prime Fed, Wawa would win his slams a lot sooner.

So, it's nothing special that Wawa or Murray are doing, it's just that Fed slowed down, they are just like Roddick or Hewitt. Plus it helped them that Fed was playing with inferior racket and also needed a few years to adjust.

It also helps that Wawrinka doesn't have to deal with Davydenko/Berdych/Tsonga in their peaks. My point is that in terms of ability, Stan isn't showing anything new, he always had this game. Heck even Ferrer would win a few RG titles if Rafa slowed down like that.
No version of Ferrer would ever beat Novak at RG though.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#99
Stan's peak level is lower at Wimbledon and USO.
higher at AO and RG.
so its nowhere near as black and white as Stan's peak being higher in slams.

If their primes were reversed, Roddick could've very well ended up with 3 slams and Stan with 0 or 1. Both matchup better vs Djokovic (Roddick in general and Stan in slams) and Federer was tougher/more consistent at slams in his prime (say from AO 04 to USO 09) as compared to Djokovic (say from AO 11 to USO 16)
I would say it's AO 2004 to AO 2010 for Fed.
 
Top