Why did Roddick seem like a better player in 2001?

[Deleted member 25923]

I was watching an old match of his from the Legg Mason Classic Championship match from 2001 against Sjeng Schalken.

His serve was booming, looked like it was better even more so than today. Hitting corners routinely.

His backhand actually seemed steady, he was having no trouble with it. His forehand was frickin huge! He had absolutely no trouble putting it away.

And the biggest surprise of all, he could volley! Yes, he was hitting some well played volleys.

So WTF happened to the old Roddick?

Is it because he sucked on clay and started to use more spin? Did Fed sap him of all of his confidence? Was the switch to Lacoste a dentrimental move? Should he keep wearing his hat backwards?

 

[anointedone]

He isnt a better player in 2001. If 2001 he wasnt even good enough to crack the top 10 in a field where Hewitt was #1 in the world. If he were the same player he was in 2001 he wouldnt even be in the top 20 in a much stronger field today. Schalken is a moderately hitting baseliner, without either great variety or great weaponary, despite his size a terrible serve and who played way behind the baseline, who was a huge overachiever for a year or two, and whom did amazingly well to briefly make the top 10 even in the weak "transition" period from 2000-2003 of the mens game. Most good players, especialy power hitters, should look awesome against him on a good day.

Now if you had said 2003-2004 I would agree with you. He was a better player in 2003-2004 then he is now and he had a much more punishing forehand and much more confidence. I think his game went downhill fast once he fired Brad Gilbert. A very big mistake and strictly an ego move.

 

[zagor]

Now if you had said 2003-2004 I would agree with you. He was a better player in 2003-2004 then he is now and he had a much more punishing forehand and much more confidence. I think his game went downhill fast once he fired Brad Gilbert. A very big mistake and strictly an ego move.

No doubt,he was a much better player in 2004.It's since 2005 that he started this conservative defensive playing style,problem is that he doesn't have the movement to play that way.Firing Gilbert was the biggest mistake in his career IMO(despite the fact that I think Gilbert is a an arrogant ***).

 

[edmondsm]

I do think he moved better pre 2004. He bulked up and got much more power, which made him more successfull. But if you watch old clips of him in 2002 for instance against Sampras he is much more agile.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Yes, I notice he was a lot smaller back then.

Hmm, maybe Schalken is the reason he shined in that match. Anyways, the question still remains, where is Andy roddick?

 

[Chadwixx]

Competition wasnt very strong in 2001.

Combine that with guys hitting 120mph serves and he hits 140, it gives him a huge edge.

Surfaces were still pretty quick too.

Poly came out around 2002 right? Maybe thats why his volleys looked good back then.

 

[anointedone]

The only way I could see Andy getting back on track is to hire Gilbert. IMO that is the only coach for him. I dont believe Gilbert is coaching a high profile player so if he begged him very nicely he would take him back probably. I think firing Gilbert was partialy a personality clash, and partialy a knee jerk reaction to not winning a slam in 2004 despite some excellent tennis.

The reality though is even if he rediscovered his old forehand and best form the best he could be among the current field is a strong world #4 for now and it would take a little luck to win a slam again with 3 superior talents in the top 3 spots. It is probably too late in his career to develop a truly mastered serve/volley game, which is the only thing that could propel him over any of the top three IMO. However it would atleast be the best move he could make for his game and the remainder of his career, whereas the direction he is going now he will be lucky to stay in the top 10 in the coming years as the new gaurd matures.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Competition wasnt very strong in 2001.

Combine that with guys hitting 120mph serves and he hits 140, it gives him a huge edge.

Surfaces were still pretty quick too.

I disagree with that. He's playing a guy in Seppi right now who's barely reaching 100, and he's still just pushing the ball and not being as agressive as he used to be. It sucks that he just spins the ball instead of hitting through the court. If you look at old highlights, there's a clear difference. Agassi really didn't hit big, right? Neither did Safin or Fed? The argument that guys are hitting harder, therefore Roddick has to hit less hard is just bs to me.

 

[CyBorg]

Tennis is still a mental game. It isn't uncommon for one to see a player like Evgeny Korolev and prematurely conclude that he's a worldbeater.

But what it really comes down to is tactics and ability to consistently execute. The younger Roddick had a propensity for coming out with intimidation, bullets and explosions. But he found out eventually that he just wasn't able to keep this up as the match grew long.

Roddick is getting a bit older now, so he's made adjustments. He now plays a more psychological game with his opponent - less blasting and more digging in with topspin and accuracy. He's counting on his experience and fitness to outlast guys. I think he can go out there and hit as hard as he did in the past, but after all these years I think Andy has become convinced that this is no longer a recipe for success.

I think that what won Andy that match against Gulbis just recently was his resolve in the face of danger. It wasn't really about his forehand or backhand - it was about being patient and waiting for an opportunity to tie up the second set. You could see that he was still confident when down a set and a break, because he knew that Gulbis's inxperience would eventually display itself.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Tennis is still a mental game. It isn't uncommon for one to see a player like Evgeny Korolev and prematurely conclude that he's a worldbeater.

But what it really comes down to is tactics and ability to consistently execute. The younger Roddick had a propensity for coming out with intimidation, bullets and explosions. But he found out eventually that he just wasn't able to keep this up as the match grew long.

Roddick is getting a bit older now, so he's made adjustments. He now plays a more psychological game with his opponent - less blasting and more digging in with topspin and accuracy. He's counting on his experience and fitness to outlast guys. I think he can go out there and hit as hard as he did in the past, but after all these years I think Andy has become convinced that this is no longer a recipe for success.

I think that what won Andy that match against Gulbis just recently was his resolve in the face of danger. It wasn't really about his forehand or backhand - it was about being patient and waiting for an opportunity to tie up the second set. You could see that he was still confident when down a set and a break, because he knew that Gulbis's inxperience would eventually display itself.

Was it mental resolve when he choked those returns in the 4th set vs Tipsarevic at Wimbledon? I mean, he still showed flashes of the old Roddick at Dubai, when he beat Nadal and Djokovic. Why not hit the big flat forehand when he comes in instead of those weak slices he plays when he often comes in, if it's just different tactics?

 

[edmondsm]

Competition wasnt very strong in 2001.

Combine that with guys hitting 120mph serves and he hits 140, it gives him a huge edge.

Surfaces were still pretty quick too.

Poly came out around 2002 right? Maybe thats why his volleys looked good back then.

Yeah, I think that Roddick didn't benefit from the poly strings as much as his collegues did. I'm not quite sure why.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Tennis is still a mental game. It isn't uncommon for one to see a player like Evgeny Korolev and prematurely conclude that he's a worldbeater.

But what it really comes down to is tactics and ability to consistently execute. The younger Roddick had a propensity for coming out with intimidation, bullets and explosions. But he found out eventually that he just wasn't able to keep this up as the match grew long.

Roddick is getting a bit older now, so he's made adjustments. He now plays a more psychological game with his opponent - less blasting and more digging in with topspin and accuracy. He's counting on his experience and fitness to outlast guys. I think he can go out there and hit as hard as he did in the past, but after all these years I think Andy has become convinced that this is no longer a recipe for success.

I think that what won Andy that match against Gulbis just recently was his resolve in the face of danger. It wasn't really about his forehand or backhand - it was about being patient and waiting for an opportunity to tie up the second set. You could see that he was still confident when down a set and a break, because he knew that Gulbis's inxperience would eventually display itself.

Yes, but how often does he do that? Usually, he becomes defensive.

The only way I could see Andy getting back on track is to hire Gilbert. IMO that is the only coach for him. I dont believe Gilbert is coaching a high profile player so if he begged him very nicely he would take him back probably. I think firing Gilbert was partialy a personality clash, and partialy a knee jerk reaction to not winning a slam in 2004 despite some excellent tennis.

The reality though is even if he rediscovered his old forehand and best form the best he could be among the current field is a strong world #4 for now and it would take a little luck to win a slam again with 3 superior talents in the top 3 spots. It is probably too late in his career to develop a truly mastered serve/volley game, which is the only thing that could propel him over any of the top three IMO. However it would atleast be the best move he could make for his game and the remainder of his career, whereas the direction he is going now he will be lucky to stay in the top 10 in the coming years as the new gaurd matures.

I wasn't that into tennis back then, but I've heard his best results were with Gilbert.

Let's face it, i'd rather not have Gilbert commentating and I'd rather have him at the courts w/ Roddick instead.

Plus, Andy has no real coach right now, at least not full time, so it couldn't hurt.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Yeah, I think that Roddick didn't benefit from the poly strings as much as his collegues did. I'm not quite sure why.

well, he still uses a poly gut hybrid like Federer while many others go full poly. Though the gut for him is the crosses.

 

[CyBorg]

Was it mental resolve when he choked those returns in the 4th set vs Tipsarevic at Wimbledon? I mean, he still showed flashes of the old Roddick at Dubai, when he beat Nadal and Djokovic. Why not hit the big flat forehand when he comes in instead of those weak slices he plays when he often comes in, if it's just different tactics?

At Dubai Andy didn't have to play best-out-of-five matches. I can't say I know exactly what Roddick's thought processes are. My point in general is that tennis is not about big forehands. Roddick's forehand did not lose him that match at Wimbledon.

 

[CyBorg]

Yes, but how often does he do that? Usually, he becomes defensive.

Seems more like a problem with movement, not forehand. Guys get defensive when their feet don't move properly.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

At Dubai Andy didn't have to play best-out-of-five matches. I can't say I know exactly what Roddick's thought processes are. My point in general is that tennis is not about big forehands. Roddick's forehand did not lose him that match at Wimbledon.

No, his pushing the ball and just letting Janko rip backhands and forehands down the line lost him the match. If he's playing differntly, less aggressively because of tatics, he must have pretty bad tatics.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Seems more like a problem with movement, not forehand. Guys get defensive when their feet don't move properly.

Yes, that is logical.

However, at the same time, that topspin forehand from the get go doesn't help.

 

[lordmanji]

roddick used to hit the forehand almost like gulbis and his movement used to be almost like federer. now his forehand's like a pushers and his movement like a heavyweight boxer. if you compare roddick to any player in the top 50, they all have better groundstrokes than him. its his serve that keeps him in.

i really think doug spreen screwed him over by bulking him up too much.

 

[NamRanger]

The old Roddick would have lost to Gulbis. The New Roddick is much more adaptable and capable of beating anyone (yes, even Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic this year).



The old Roddick has no adaptability, if you've ever watched his matches against Johanssen and Muller, you'll see why.

 

[CyBorg]

No, his pushing the ball and just letting Janko rip backhands and forehands down the line lost him the match. If he's playing differntly, less aggressively because of tatics, he must have pretty bad tatics.

The match isn't clear in my mind, but watching Roddick this year he plays his best tennis when he walks a fine line between offense and defense. Maybe he played hurt against Tipsarevic. Maybe his movement was impaired. Roddick is certainly not a pusher and normally he beats guys like Tipsarevic.

I think that some folks don't realize that tennis players don't always play at 100%. A single match normally isn't representative of a player's abilities. There are so many factors at play.

I'm watching Roddick right now against Seppi and I'm seeing some good aggressive plays but also occasional passiveness. But the passiveness doesn't come from the way he hits the forehand - rather on occasion Andy's movement gets a bit lazy and tactically he may wait too long before going up the line. I like some of the new things to Andy's game that there never were before. He's hitting some good quality lobs and his volleying has improved. He's made an effort to play a more balanced game. I bet that a lot of this has to do with Andy wanting to remain competitive as he ages, by having more variety than his younger opponents.

 

[anointedone]

The old Roddick would have lost to Gulbis. The New Roddick is much more adaptable and capable of beating anyone (yes, even Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic this year).

The old Roddick has no adaptability, if you've ever watched his matches against Johanssen and Muller, you'll see why.

So you think the 2003-2004 Roddick would have lost in the 3rd round of both of the two non-clay court slams this year to Kohlschrieber and Tipsarevic?

 

[NamRanger]

So you think the 2003-2004 Roddick would have lost in the 3rd round of both of the two non-clay court slams this year to Kohlschrieber and Tipsarevic?

If they were serving well and out blasting Roddick yes. Roddick 2003-2004 was very hard to outblast, but when you can do it, he's in BIG trouble (see 2004 USO where Pim Pim just out Served/Forehanded Roddick)

 

[lordmanji]

watching his seppi match right now and a couple of things: roddick is slower and so he's often hitting off his backfoot on groundstrokes causing him to lose pace on his shot; roddick seems to windshield wipe too much instead of driving through the ball on his forehand especially but not limited to low balls.

 

[Cenc]

he probably seemed better because he was better