Why did Roddick lose in the 1st round at the 2005 US OPEN

[tennis-hero]

was he injured?

in 2006 he made the finals

but in 2005, he lost in straight sets, to someone who himself got handed 2 breadsticks in the 2nd round?

anyone, ideas?

 

[Cenc]

he lost because his opponent won 3 sets before him
i guess he played better

 

[RoddickAce]

Roddick's down-time during that time. Basically lost his big forehand while trying to develop a full game to beat fed. And what's even worse was the fact that the "whole game" didn't really work out that well either. This carried on to Wimbledon of the next year, before he started working with Connors.

 

[tennis-hero]

Roddick has an INCREDIBLE record at the US OPEN

in 8 years he has

1 win
1 final
5 QFs

and in the middle he has this CRAZY 1st round loss, in straight sets!!!!

albeit tie breakers..... but still

 

[Serendipitous]

Great match.....Muller was absolutely on fire. Roddick had a couple of set points in the second set tie-break, though. The match was very close for a three-setter.

Roddick was also up 5-2 in the first set.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Gilles Muller outplayed him. Simple as that.

 

[GameSampras]

Its Roddick. What do u expect? OVERRATED, OVERHYPED for years, and flat out not as good as people would love to give him credit for

 

[woodrow1029]

The funniest thing was that was the year with all the American Express commercials about Andy's Mojo. And he got beat in the first round..

 

[woodrow1029]

The funniest thing was that was the year with all the American Express commercials about Andy's Mojo. And he got beat in the first round..

 

[RCizzle65]

Does anyone have a link to those commercials?

 

[bizarre_opinion]

pointless thread.

 

[egn]

Its Roddick. What do u expect? OVERRATED, OVERHYPED for years, and flat out not as good as people would love to give him credit for

Everyone loses once in a while. Roddick simply got outplayed.

 

[clayman2000]

Its becuase Muller played well, but at the same time, Roddick succumbed to the pressure. He didnt have the mental strength to win the match.

When Roddick plays an opponent who is clearly tiers below him, and keeps the match close, Roddick gets rattled. Its weird becuase when he is behind in a match he fights to keep it close. But when the match is close, he falters

 

[FD3S]

Its Roddick. What do u expect? OVERRATED, OVERHYPED for years, and flat out not as good as people would love to give him credit for

Overhyped I'll give you, but the dude's been in the top ten for seven years, or something like that. I don't think that's overrated, there.

 

[edberg505]

Its Roddick. What do u expect? OVERRATED, OVERHYPED for years, and flat out not as good as people would love to give him credit for

Overrated huh? Well he has a winning H2H against the mighty Pete Sampras.

 

[BreakPoint]

Overrated huh? Well he has a winning H2H against the mighty Pete Sampras.

But not when it mattered, like at the 2002 US Open where Pete schooled Roddick, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4.

 

[GameSampras]

But not when it mattered, like at the 2002 US Open where Pete schooled Roddick, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4.

LOL.. OWNED


Pete at 32 years of age mind you.


Where I find Roddick is overrated is the fact that everyone wants to say "Oh Without Fed around, Roddick this or Roddick that." I dont see Roddick having much more success in the 80s or 90s either as he did the 00's. Without or without Fed around. There were plenty of greats who could take Rodddick out like yesterdays trash.


Yet they want to play the "Fed trump card." Well if Roddick was so good he wouldnt have a such a pathetic 1-43 record or whatever the hell it is against Fed. Even with Fed on the decline, Roddick still gets abused by Fed.


And every year I have to hear, Oh this could be Roddick's year to grab another slam.. And every year that goes by Roddick always comes up short against someone. So yea in that regard hes overrated. People actually think Roddick is a champion. Hes nothing but an era filler. A consistent top 10. A michael chang if you will. Nothing more nothing less . Though maybe Im hyping Roddick up too much to even be compared to chang. But Roddick certainly isnt a champion. Just a solid player. But some people want to make him out to be something he is not

 

[flying24]

Mueller is a dangerous and streaky player who played a phenomenal match that day. Roddick played only so so and was outplayed by a red hot opponent that day. Mueller was the last player to take Nadal out at Wimbledon not named Federer, and made the U.S Open quarters last year as a qualifier, so he is a capable player on his day. He also was a #1 ranked junior so was actually quite promising in his early years, not any longer of course. It is hilarious to see GameSampras using this as another excuse to beat up on Roddick. Yeah we get it, Roddick isnt a legend of tennis, but there are much greater players than Roddick who have had upset losses early equally as bad as this particular one.

 

[edberg505]

But not when it mattered, like at the 2002 US Open where Pete schooled Roddick, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4.

Oh, but wait. Everyone likes to bring up the fact that Murray has a winning H2H against Federer. How is it any different to the Pete situation?

 

[edberg505]

LOL.. OWNED


Pete at 32 years of age mind you.


Where I find Roddick is overrated is the fact that everyone wants to say "Oh Without Fed around, Roddick this or Roddick that." I dont see Roddick having much more success in the 80s or 90s either as he did the 00's. Without or without Fed around. There were plenty of greats who could take Rodddick out like yesterdays trash.


Yet they want to play the "Fed trump card." Well if Roddick was so good he wouldnt have a such a pathetic 1-43 record or whatever the hell it is against Fed. Even with Fed on the decline, Roddick still gets abused by Fed.


And every year I have to hear, Oh this could be Roddick's year to grab another slam.. And every year that goes by Roddick always comes up short against someone. So yea in that regard hes overrated. People actually think Roddick is a champion. Hes nothing but an era filler. A consistent top 10. A michael chang if you will. Nothing more nothing less . Though maybe Im hyping Roddick up too much to even be compared to chang. But Roddick certainly isnt a champion. Just a solid player. But some people want to make him out to be something he is not

I thought Federer was still in his prime. At least that's what you've said several times.

 

[BreakPoint]

Oh, but wait. Everyone likes to bring up the fact that Murray has a winning H2H against Federer. How is it any different to the Pete situation?

It isn't.

Federer > Murray.

 

[GameSampras]

I thought Federer was still in his prime. At least that's what you've said several times.

I think hes in his prime... But the very tail end of it. He certainly isnt at his 05 or 06 level. But I consider that the peak of his prime. But he is on the decline I think. Slowly but surely. But look at his overrall record. Hes 0-5 against the top 3. And is abusing the rest of the tour with a 21-1 record. Pretty solid if u ask me

 

[flying24]

I thought Federer was still in his prime. At least that's what you've said several times.

A player is whatever suits GameSampras's biased stance at any given moment. If Federer being in his prime suits that he is, if his no longer being suits that then he isnt.

 

[flying24]

I think hes in his prime... But the very tail end of it. He certainly isnt at his 05 or 06 level. But I consider that the peak of his prime. But he is on the decline I think. Slowly but surely. But look at his overrall record. Hes 0-5 against the top 3. And is abusing the rest of the tour with a 21-1 record. Pretty solid if u ask me

You are right. It makes total sense to expect one of the all time greatest like Federer to always lose to Djokovic or Murray in his prime.

 

[GameSampras]

A player is whatever suits GameSampras's biased stance at any given moment. If Federer being in his prime suits that he is, if his no longer being suits that then he isnt.

Lets see.. He is reaching the finals of every slam. Hes 0-5 against the top 3 and is destroying the rest of the tour with a 21-1 record.



I think thats still a players prime when u look at his slam results. When Lendl was reaching every slam final for instance, what u of said Lendl was PASSED HIS PRIME? Hell no u wouldnt. .. If any other player was reaching slam final after slam final and was destroying 90 plus percent of the tour with ease I think u would consider that player in their prime as well

 

[GameSampras]

You are right. It makes total sense to expect one of the all time greatest like Federer to always lose to Djokovic or Murray in his prime.

Ummm why not?? They are very good players and bad matchups for Roger. And did u miss the USO. Did you see what Roger did to both of them. Where is Roger losing to these two players? At smaller crap tourneys Roger doesnt put much emphasis on? What did Roger do to these two when it mattered most? Humiliated them

 

[clayman2000]

LOL.. OWNED


Pete at 32 years of age mind you.


Where I find Roddick is overrated is the fact that everyone wants to say "Oh Without Fed around, Roddick this or Roddick that." I dont see Roddick having much more success in the 80s or 90s either as he did the 00's. Without or without Fed around. There were plenty of greats who could take Rodddick out like yesterdays trash.


Yet they want to play the "Fed trump card." Well if Roddick was so good he wouldnt have a such a pathetic 1-43 record or whatever the hell it is against Fed. Even with Fed on the decline, Roddick still gets abused by Fed.


And every year I have to hear, Oh this could be Roddick's year to grab another slam.. And every year that goes by Roddick always comes up short against someone. So yea in that regard hes overrated. People actually think Roddick is a champion. Hes nothing but an era filler. A consistent top 10. A michael chang if you will. Nothing more nothing less . Though maybe Im hyping Roddick up too much to even be compared to chang. But Roddick certainly isnt a champion. Just a solid player. But some people want to make him out to be something he is not

So once again you have gone back to your weak era thing, which cannot be proved, and is purely based on speculation.

I find it hard to believe that just a "solid player" can make 4 GS finals, win 1, finish a year number one, spend 4 years in the top 5.

Roddick certainly isnt a champion
If Roddick isnt a champion than no one is (besides Nadal). Roddick constantly perseveres, fights, and has passion. He has all the makings of a champion (well except the knowledge of when to approach, but thats another story).

For me if Roddick wasnt a fighter, he would have been done in 2006, just like Lleyton Hewitt.

 

[GameSampras]

So once again you have gone back to your weak era thing, which cannot be proved, and is purely based on speculation.

I find it hard to believe that just a "solid player" can make 4 GS finals, win 1, finish a year number one, spend 4 years in the top 5.

Roddick certainly isnt a champion
If Roddick isnt a champion than no one is (besides Nadal). Roddick constantly perseveres, fights, and has passion. He has all the makings of a champion (well except the knowledge of when to approach, but thats another story).

For me if Roddick wasnt a fighter, he would have been done in 2006, just like Lleyton Hewitt.

Hewitt was done by 06 because of injuries. Not because he wasnt a fighter. And whats really sad is Hewitt made more of a career for himself in only a few short years than Roddick has as a consistent top 10 for going on 6-8 years. THATS BAD.

 

[anointedone]

Hewitt was done by 06 because of injuries. Not because he wasnt a fighter. And whats really sad is Hewitt made more of a career for himself in only a few short years than Roddick has as a consistent top 10 for going on 6-8 years. THATS BAD.

Hewitt at his best is a superior player to Roddick. He has a much more solid ground game, a many time superior return of serve, court coverage and an overall defensive game that Roddick could only dream of, is tougher mentally, and is even a more solid volleyer. It is no surprise even with a shorter prime he achieved alot more.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

Roddick was starting on a serious slump in the aftermath of firing Gilbert and unsuccessfully attempting to change his game to match Federer's. He was out of form and low on confidence, ran into an inspired Muller, and came up short in the crucial points in the tiebreaks.

 

[NamRanger]

Hewitt at his best is a superior player to Roddick. He has a much more solid ground game, a many time superior return of serve, court coverage and an overall defensive game that Roddick could only dream of, is tougher mentally, and is even a more solid volleyer. It is no surprise even with a shorter prime he achieved alot more.

Hewitt got lucky that he snuck in 2 slams before Federer hit his stride. Roddick has only been on the tour since 2001, and managed to get a slam in 2003 before Federer got rolling in 2004.

 

[deltox]

everyone can keep hating on Roddick, by the time wimbledon ends this year Roddick will be comfortably in the #5 spot again and start working towards chasing down the top 4. flame me if you want, but you heard it here first.

 

[clayman2000]

everyone can keep hating on Roddick, by the time wimbledon ends this year Roddick will be comfortably in the #5 spot again and start working towards chasing down the top 4. flame me if you want, but you heard it here first.

I know Roddicks vastly underrrated on these boards, but i dont think top 4 is in his reach. As he gets older Andy is playing less tournaments. When you play 1 tournament in the clay season its hard to make ground on the top 4.

Also:
Hewitt vs Roddick
Hewits Prime vs Baby Roddick -- 5 sets
Hewitt 2nd prime vs Roddick prime starting to fall a tiny bit -- 7-6, 6-7, 7-6

So i dont think that Hewitt is that better than Roddick that you could call him superior, but thats ones opinion

 

[Azzurri]

Roddick has an INCREDIBLE record at the US OPEN

in 8 years he has

1 win
1 final
5 QFs

and in the middle he has this CRAZY 1st round loss, in straight sets!!!!

albeit tie breakers..... but still

I am curious at the word "incredible" you use. What is so incredible? What woould you call Lendl 8 straight finals, Fed's dominance, Sampras 5 victories and Mac's 4..etc. What word would you use to describe them?

I would use "consistent" cuz he was able to get into the second week.

 

[tennis-hero]

I am curious at the word "incredible" you use. What is so incredible? What woould you call Lendl 8 straight finals, Fed's dominance, Sampras 5 victories and Mac's 4..etc. What word would you use to describe them?

I would use "consistent" cuz he was able to get into the second week.

he won the damn thing...

he won a slam

thats incredible, he's been consistent like you've said

how would i describe Pete or Roger or even connors and Lendl at the US open?

couldn't do it.... on another level of magnificence

blessed by the Lord

 

[Azzurri]

he won the damn thing...

he won a slam

thats incredible, he's been consistent like you've said

how would i describe Pete or Roger or even connors and Lendl at the US open?

couldn't do it.... on another level of magnificence

blessed by the Lord

LOL..I assume then English is your 3rd-4th language then. Because you can't use incredible considering he won ONE major compared to MANY other players who have won more....again, odd you would use that word with Roddick except for maybe the pace of his serve.

 

[EtePras]

It's obvious, the level of competition is so high that even a great champion can lose in the 1st round.

 

[devila]

In the US Open, when did Roddick play with an unswollen ankle against Sampras? When did Roddick fight like his livelihood depended on tennis wins? When did Roddick do well with the creep Brad Gilbert? When did Gilbert consider him anything except his serving idiot?

When did anyone care to make him work with practice partners who didn't spray shots in the net? Remember Blake and Donald Young?

 

[tennis-hero]

LOL..I assume then English is your 3rd-4th language then. Because you can't use incredible considering he won ONE major compared to MANY other players who have won more....again, odd you would use that word with Roddick except for maybe the pace of his serve.

yes i consider winning a slam INCREDIBLE (i didn't know that you thought winning a slam was something easy)

also having a consistent record and making 5 QFs and another final- incredible

Roddick is the most underrated player this era

 

[alienhamster]

LOL.. OWNED


Pete at 32 years of age mind you.


Where I find Roddick is overrated is the fact that everyone wants to say "Oh Without Fed around, Roddick this or Roddick that." I dont see Roddick having much more success in the 80s or 90s either as he did the 00's. Without or without Fed around. There were plenty of greats who could take Rodddick out like yesterdays trash.


Yet they want to play the "Fed trump card." Well if Roddick was so good he wouldnt have a such a pathetic 1-43 record or whatever the hell it is against Fed. Even with Fed on the decline, Roddick still gets abused by Fed.


And every year I have to hear, Oh this could be Roddick's year to grab another slam.. And every year that goes by Roddick always comes up short against someone. So yea in that regard hes overrated. People actually think Roddick is a champion. Hes nothing but an era filler. A consistent top 10. A michael chang if you will. Nothing more nothing less . Though maybe Im hyping Roddick up too much to even be compared to chang. But Roddick certainly isnt a champion. Just a solid player. But some people want to make him out to be something he is not

Who are these "people" you keep referring to who are hyping Roddick? They certainly aren't posting all that much on this forum. I think you're exaggerating the supposed "hype", frankly.

And you can't deny that Roddick *is* a champion. Is he a GOAT? No, but he's had arguably the third best record of any tennis player in this decade behind Federer and Nadal. That's nothing to sneeze at.