Why did Roddick struggle so much against Federer?

[Roddick85]

I always enjoy revisiting older matches. More so during the off season when there's nothing happening on tour. I'm re-watching for the 3rd time, the 2009 Wimbledon final between Federer/Roddick. Looking back at all the matches these 2 had, I never fully understood why Roddick has a 3-21 record against Federer, when he's got a very respectable 5-4 record against Djokovic and a mediocre 3-7 against Nadal, 2 players who've given Federer lots of trouble in the last 5-6 years. While his record against Nadal ain't great, it's still better than against Federer. If you look at the other rivals of his generation, he's got a 7-7 record against Hewitt and 4-3 against Safin. Not that bad of a record.

On paper, I don't think Federer is a bad match up for Roddick, unlike Federer-Nadal where Nadal can play his top spin forehand to Roger's backhand and break it down. Now I'm not saying Roddick should be dominating Federer or have a positive H2H, but in theory, it should of been a bit better than 3-21. Both are part of the same generation, Roddick being a year younger, both came up in the post Sampras era. Let's see how they compare game wise.

Serve
I think Federer's serve has always been underrated vs Roddick. While Roddick's got the pace and % for a serve that strong, Federer's got better placement and precision. If you look at Wimbledon 2009, Federer served almost twice as many ace as Roddick (50 vs 27). They both have remarkable 2nd serves. In the end, it's a matter of pace vs placement, so I don't think either one has the advantage. Federer can back his serve better than Roddick, but that's for another category.
Winner: Tie

Forehand
Federer probably has one of the greatest forehand ever. Roddick used to have a great forehand when he was ripping it in his Reebok days/Prime . In the 2nd half of his career, he became very loopy. Don't get me wrong, it was still good, but nowhere near what it was a few years earlier.
Winner: Federer

Backhand
The Roddick backhand has never been a great shot, everyone agree's on that. While he never really hit winners on that side, it was never a big source of errors as all he had going for it was the consistency. Federer's backhand was and is still a lot more prone to errors, it did get better in the last couple of years but it's still his weaker side. However, Federer's backhand shot making ability has always been there with the angles he's been able to create with it.
Winner: Federer

Return of serve
Roddick has never been known as a great returner, but he wasn't bad either, especially compared to the current crop of players with big serve like Raonic and Isner who literally can't break serve. Then again, another case where Roddick is good, Federer just does it better. Federer always thrived against any servers during his prime, even better against big servers. For some reason, he seems to have been one of the only player that could properly read Roddick's serve.
Winner: Federer

Net game
Roddick's net game never really did it for me, he never seemed natural when he came to the net. He was only effective against sitters/easy shots, I never saw him as having "great hands/touch". While I think Federer does have great hands at the net and can play S&V (vs Sampras 2001), he doesn't have as great of a touch as Sampras. Also, like Roddick, he sometimes comes to the net behind a subpar approach. In the current era, Federer is probably the best net player in the top 10, however he's not a great volleyer like Edberg/Sampras/McEnroe were. Sadly, even in 2012, Roddick's net game wasn't all that great either. Gotta give Roger the edge on this one.
Winner: Federer

Footwork
I'm not going to waste much time on this one, as this is a no contest. Federer was gliding on court during his prime, nuff said.
Winner: Federer

Looking back at those Wimbledon matches, if you go strictly by the score, you'd think that Wimbledon 2009 was the closest Roddick ever came to beating Federer, which is more or less true. I still believe to this day, that Wimbledon 2004 was where the real opportunity was for him. He had the serve and forehand still going for him back in those days and he clearly had Federer in the ropes before that rain delay allowed Federer to regroup and turn things around. In 2005, Roddick didn't stand a chance at Wimbledon, neither at the 2006 US Open. 2009 Wimbledon was really where he gave it all. If you look back at the match, Federer wasn't playing all that well based on his own standard. Good thing he was giving a serving clinic on that day because the rest of his game was average compared to what he displayed in the previous years. Roddick wasn't playing bad either, but he couldn't beat what was a subpar Federer in my opinion.

Overall, when you look at both player's game, everything that Roddick did well, Federer just did it better than him. Roddick was able to dominate his opponents with his strong serve, unfortunately for him, Federer was one of the only players who could read it properly. His forehand was great before Connors and Stefanki and a series of injuries turned his forehand, his 2nd greatest weapon into an average/loopy shot. I think Roddick's best chances against Federer have always been on grass, on hard court Federer was too great. Let's not talk about clay, we all know Roddick hated the surface. Beyong the Federer match-up, I think what killed Roddick's career in the 2nd half are his coaching choices. He played at his best when he was with Brad Gilbert, slight decline with Connors. His longest partnership has been with Stefanki and also the less productive. I actually think Larry Stefanki is the one that butchered his forehand, instead focusing on making him a defensive player and improving his footwork. Don't get me wrong, the improved footwork helped, but removing the pace from his forehand did a lot more harm than whatever good came out of the improved footwork.

 

[driscoll]

I am confused. You have concluded Federer is better in virtually every area, yet also ask why Roddick struggled so much.

 

[90's Clay]

1. Lack of athleticism
2. NO net game to speak of to follow up his big serve and FH
3. No Speed
4. No belief in himself (even when he had a match in hand he found ways to screw it up)
5. Not very good from the back court
6. Sissy BH
7. His footwork was just god awful.
LOTS OF REASONS....

 

[Matthew Bance]

in my opinion the reason is Federer takes the pace off the ball and has so much time on I. making it difficult for Roddick to use his huge serve.

but in terms of game:
serve: Federer does indeed have great prescion but Roddick still has big serve. RODDICK WINS

FOREHAND:OBVIUOSLY FED. BUT RODDICK HAD A UNDERESTIMATED FOREHAND. A-ROD PROBABLY HAD TOO EXTREME A GRIP

BACKHAND TOPSPIN: (meaning Federer onehand and Roddick two). OBVIOUSLY FED BECAUSE RODDICK HAD A REALLY... REALLY BAD TOPSPIN

SLICE: I THINK ITS TIE :twisted: RODDICK ACTUALLY HAD A GREAT SLICE

VOLLEYS: REALLY REALLY CLOSE. BUT FED
SMASH: RODDICK

 

[dominikk1985]

one of roddicks biggest problems was that his BH couldn't deal with rogers slice. roger would hit a short slice into roddicks BH a million times and roddick really couldn't do anything with it.

roddick usually responded with a weak CC BH and then fed could run around his BH and hit a winner.

also while federer was not really a great returner he was getting a lot of balls back into play. often this was with a passive BH slice return but against andy that was often enough to get into the rally and then beat him from the baseline.

and of course feds own serve while not quite as good as roddicks was world class itself and more than good enough to easily hold serve against mediocre returner roddick.

 

[rainingaces]

For someone who could hit aces so hard he hardly hit many winners, I never figured that out.

Roddick's serve is better then Federer's come on! Federer's return was a slight bit better, Roddick's wasn't bad. Roddick threw everything he had at Federer everytime he just wasn't going to win 45% + of the ralleys or more and he needed to.

 

[Roddick85]

Roddick's serve is better then Federer's come on! Federer's return was a slight bit better, Roddick's wasn't bad. Roddick threw everything he had at Federer everytime he just wasn't going to win 45% + of the ralleys or more and he needed to.

I used to think Roddick was a much better server than Federer myself, but pace alone doesn't equal an effective serve. Perhaps on hard court, Roddick's serve is more effective than Federer, but I'd give them a tie on grass.

 

[driscoll]

For someone who could hit aces so hard he hardly hit many winners, I never figured that out.

Roddick's serve is better then Federer's come on! Federer's return was a slight bit better, Roddick's wasn't bad. Roddick threw everything he had at Federer everytime he just wasn't going to win 45% + of the ralleys or more and he needed to.

Federers return of serve is way better than Roddicks. Get real. Not just a bit bitter. The gap between their return of serves is many times more than the gap between their serves too (which isnt nearly as much as you seem to think, Federer has one of the best serves in the game, and Roddick does not have the very best overall serve in the game either), which is why Federer returns Roddick serve better than vice versa, and gets more free points off his serve than Roddick does when they play one another. So Roddick has to either outplay Federer off the ground, or win alot of points at net to win the match, and good luck with that over a long best of 5 match.

 

[mmk]

Most matches I watched between them Fed ended up with more aces than Roddick.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Most matches I watched between them Fed ended up with more aces than Roddick.

That says a lot more about their returning abilities than serves. Roddick's serve was better than Federer's.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I used to think Roddick was a much better server than Federer myself, but pace alone doesn't equal an effective serve. Perhaps on hard court, Roddick's serve is more effective than Federer, but I'd give them a tie on grass.

No way. How many times have seen Federer up a break against Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray and then he misses all his first serves in a game and hopelessly gets broken back. Federer's serve is nowhere near as dependable as Roddick's, which is why Roddick was superior to Federer in terms of career break points saved,career service games won, 1st serve points won, and aces. And keep in mind that Roddick surpasses Federer in most of these stats despite not having Federer's all-round skills to help him win points when his serve got returned.

 

[dominikk1985]

That says a lot more about their returning abilities than serves. Roddick's serve was better than Federer's.

both serves have been tremendous but you are right that the aces have more to do with roddicks return and athleticism than with feds serve.

roddick was not a terrible returner but he was never more than average. he was also not a great athlete on the court.

fed was not a top notch returner himself (even in his best years he was only 5th-6th in return games won) but he was quite good at retrieving first serves which was enough to get in rallies with roddick.

roddick could not do any harm to feds serve because he lacked the return quality.

on a scale of 1-10 I would rate their serve/return game like this:

serve

roddick 10
fed 9

return

fed 7-8
roddick 4-5

fed was also much better at the baseline and at the net.

 

[swfh]

commenting on their serves, I've seen both of these players live court side at the US Open, (roddick at his last practice in fact), and to me Roddick had the better serve. I'd put his serve above a Raonic as well. The amount of racket head speed he got was ridiculous. Absolutely unbelievable.

 

[jaggy]

Im sure A-dick would blame the umpires for the struggle.

 

[Enigma]

Federer's first few wins helped his confidence against Roddick. As he won more and more matches against Roddick, his confidence grew and grew, so he usually played well whenever he faced Roddick.

 

[driscoll]

That says a lot more about their returning abilities than serves. Roddick's serve was better than Federer's.

Yes, but it was more than a bit better as one poster stated. Their serves were much closer than their return of serves were, even though Roddick probably had the better serve. Roddick was a mediocre returner at best, especialy on faster courts.

 

[driscoll]

People who think Roddick might be one of the 30 best ever havent really studied the history of the game much. Boris Becker might be one of the 30 best ever (he would be near the bottom of the top 30).

 

[90's Clay]

Im not talking in terms of achievement, I'm talking interms of what the balls was doing off his strings, infact I'd go as far to say as he was perhaps one of the best 15 ever.

Ranks based on achievement (limited or not limited to the open era) he doesn't even register obviously.

But lets be honest Roddick would kill Hoad and Laver 0n0

Roddick top 15 ever? Would kill Laver and Hoad? Lay off the drugs my man:shock: Roddick would be lucky to even win a match vs. Laver (Who was a farrrr more talented tennis player than Federer)

 

[driscoll]

Im not talking in terms of achievement, I'm talking interms of what the balls was doing off his strings, infact I'd go as far to say as he was perhaps one of the best 15 ever.

Ranks based on achievement (limited or not limited to the open era) he doesn't even register obviously.

But lets be honest Roddick would kill Hoad and Laver 0n0

Not if you put them in a time machine and have them all play in the same era. Hoad at his best was practically unplayable btw, even Gonzales and Laver said you could not defeat him at his best.

 

[Triskadekaphilia]

Wimby 2009

Roddick's bullet-like serve was the only reason he almost won the match. It was extremely hot. Fed couldn't handle it and only managed to break him in the (IIRC) 77th game when Roddick was basically out of gas. When Fed was able to get a return it was almost always weak. He did not get any better during the match duration at reading it or getting on top of it. Plus, Fed lost his concentration during a couple of his own service games leading to the breaks.

The rest of Roddick's game was no match for Fed. Roddick's volleys are almost laughably bad... I don't mean to belittle him since he was obviously a top player at the time /former number one... but he looked like a club player at times when volleying. Why did he keep coming forward?? Why play to his weakness?? He would have had better results IMO by using his serve to set up his solid forehand.

This Wimby 2009 final is a synopsis of their rivalry. Even serving his best, with Fed playing subpar he could not close the deal. Roddick's game is simply inferior to Fed in every way except serve. Plus, he chose to play to his weakness (volleys). Thus, his gameplan was worse as well.

 

[90's Clay]

Roddick's bullet-like serve was the only reason he almost won the match. It was extremely hot. Fed couldn't handle it and only managed to break him in the (IIRC) 77th game when Roddick was basically out of gas. When Fed was able to get a return it was almost always weak. He did not get any better during the match duration at reading it or getting on top of it. Plus, Fed lost his concentration during a couple of his own service games leading to the breaks.

The rest of Roddick's game was no match for Fed. Roddick's volleys are almost laughably bad... I don't mean to belittle him since he was obviously a top player at the time /former number one... but he looked like a club player at times when volleying. Why did he keep coming forward?? Why play to his weakness?? He would have had better results IMO by using his serve to set up his solid forehand.

This Wimby 2009 final is a synopsis of their rivalry. Even serving his best, with Fed playing subpar he could not close the deal. Roddick's game is simply inferior to Fed in every way except serve. Plus, he chose to play to his weakness (volleys). Thus, his gameplan was worse as well.

Great post. I think if Roddick just had an average transitional net game (it didn't have to be Edberg, Rafter, McEnroe good) , a few of those matches with Federer at the slams probably would have gone in Roddick's favor. I wish Roddick would have worked on his attack and net game more than he did because as you said, most of the aspects of Roddick's game outside his serve and forehand indeed was LAUGHABLY BAD

 

[hoodjem]

At the end of the day Roddick was a very good tennis player, maybe one of the best 30 or so ever to play the game and came up against the guy who may very well be the best ever. It was never ending well.

Sorry, but I believe that you seriously over-rate Roddick's everything.

The only thing he had worthy of the top-30 all-time was his serve.

 

[hoodjem]

But lets be honest Roddick would kill Hoad and Laver

Being very honest, Hoad would just CRUSH Roddick.

 

[Triskadekaphilia]

Thanks, I appreciate that

Great post. I think if Roddick just had an average transitional net game (it didn't have to be Edberg, Rafter, McEnroe good) , a few of those matches with Federer at the slams probably would have gone in Roddick's favor. I wish Roddick would have worked on his attack and net game more than he did because as you said, most of the aspects of Roddick's game outside his serve and forehand indeed was LAUGHABLY BAD

 

[90's Clay]

Being very honest, Hoad would just CRUSH Roddick.

Roddick would be lucky to win any matches at all vs. Laver as well

 

[RoddickAce]

In general:
1) Federer can hit winners on both wings, Roddick after 2005 cannot really hit winners off either wing, so he tries to finish the point at net, but approaches off of weak approach shots
2) Roddick serves better than Federer, but Federer returns much better than Roddick
3) Near the end of Roddick's career, he was actually more consistent than Federer on the backhand side, and could put pressure on Federer's backhand, but his inability to finish off points eventually leads him back to point #1

 

[Federer20042006]

Roddick's backhand is seriously underrated. He hit more BH winners than most players on tour, as he was more offensive-minded than most (despite going into pusher mode quite often in his later years). It was also a solid rally shot, and of course, his ugly slice frustrated a lot of opponents.

If Roddick had the athleticism/footwork to create forehand angles the way Federer did, and if he were better on the return, he would've had one helluva rivalry with Federer.

Ultimately, Roddick just didn't have a great feel for the game, and that was his major limitation.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Explaining Roddick's dismall H2H with Federer by pointing at their strength and weakness point by point isn't a complete explanation because it only leads to saying: "outside his serve and forehand, Roddick was really bad", which is true in his matches against Fed.

Yet, between 2007-2012, Roddick posted a 5-4 records against Djokovic.

In the same time-span, he won one out of 11 matches against Federer.

Who himself had 14-12 H2H with Djokovic between 2007 and 2012.

Why did Roddick performed well against Djokovic?

 

[NatF]

Roddick is getting underrated here by the usual suspects.

1) His backhand was solid though not threatening usually. He could hit winners off that wing and it didn't really give off many UE's. He had a good passing shot of that wing.
2) His volleys weren't bad, it was his approaches that were bad.
3) He was actually a very good athlete especially in his best years of 03-04. He had good legs.

 

[hoodjem]

Okay, I have a serious question: what happened to Roddick's forehand?

Early on in his career, it seemed to be a huge weapon, but after a few years not so much. It became similar to his backhand: solid but not much more.

 

[Roddick85]

Okay, I have a serious question: what happened to Roddick's forehand?

Early on in his career, it seemed to be a huge weapon, but after a few years not so much. It became similar to his backhand: solid but not much more.

I always wondered that myself and could never find a logical explanation. Why go from something that was his biggest weapon after his serve and transform it into something as weak as his backhand? I just don't see the logic. It's not that his backhand or forehand were particularly bad or a big source of UE, but his ability to hit winners with his loopy forehand was greatly reduced. The more he started to loop it, the more he declined in the ranking and made less tournament finals.

I have nothing to back this up, but the only plausible explanation I found are Stefanki made him change his style, or he had to because he was injured a lot from 2007 until the end of his career.

 

[driscoll]

Roddick is getting underrated here by the usual suspects.

1) His backhand was solid though not threatening usually. He could hit winners off that wing and it didn't really give off many UE's. He had a good passing shot of that wing.
2) His volleys weren't bad, it was his approaches that were bad.
3) He was actually a very good athlete especially in his best years of 03-04. He had good legs.

Some are underrating him but I think overrate him somewhat. The real truth lies somewhere in between.

I would never call him a very good athlete at the top level of the game. An adequate one at best. He would never a smooth or efficient mover, his balance was never that good, he doesnt have great leaping ability.

Very good passing shot off the backhand side. Umm I never saw. Solid in a baseline rally to some extent I guess.

I agree his volleys themselves were ok, but he hit the dumbest and worst approach shots of a top player I ever saw and did them with regularity. His total dumb *** approaches mostly cost him the 2004 Wimbledon final with Federer, especialy late in the sets he lost.

 

[driscoll]

Okay, I have a serious question: what happened to Roddick's forehand?

Early on in his career, it seemed to be a huge weapon, but after a few years not so much. It became similar to his backhand: solid but not much more.

Roddick`s best tennis by far was under Gilbert from mid 2003-end of 2004. Firing him was the absolutely DUMBEST thing he would ever do. Had he stayed with Gilbert I could see him possibly becoming a 4 slam winner upon retirement. When he fired him, I wasnt surprised he never won another slam. The huge forehand immediately was replaced by mostly a puffball, and he became a serve and push player, who tried to play a Nadal like retrievers game from the baseline. If he had Nadal`s serve as well he would have spent most of his post Gilbert career outside the top 50.

Firing Gilbert was a dumb knee jerk reaction to not winning a slam in 2004. He was never going to be a 10+ slam winner so he was always going to have some slamless years.

 

[dominikk1985]

Okay, I have a serious question: what happened to Roddick's forehand?

Early on in his career, it seemed to be a huge weapon, but after a few years not so much. It became similar to his backhand: solid but not much more.

he did that on purpose. he thought that he needed to become more consistent because in early fed matches he made a ton of UEs. he thought he could outgrind roger if he was more patient because he realized he could not hit through roger.

still a bad idea in the end. the 05-09 roddick did move a little better and had a better BH but still the "one dimensional" slugger of 01-04 was more dangerous. he still would have lost most matches but maybe on a "hot" day he could have done it at wimby.

 

[Roddick85]

Roddick`s best tennis by far was under Gilbert from mid 2003-end of 2004. Firing him was the absolutely DUMBEST thing he would ever do. Had he stayed with Gilbert I could see him possibly becoming a 4 slam winner upon retirement. When he fired him, I wasnt surprised he never won another slam. The huge forehand immediately was replaced by mostly a puffball, and he became a serve and push player, who tried to play a Nadal like retrievers game from the baseline. If he had Nadal`s serve as well he would have spent most of his post Gilbert career outside the top 50.

Firing Gilbert was a dumb knee jerk reaction to not winning a slam in 2004. He was never going to be a 10+ slam winner so he was always going to have some slamless years.

Agreeing with you on that, never understood why he got rid of Gilbert. I wonder why he stayed with Larry Stefanki for so long, when he became his coach, his problems became worst and worst until he retired.

 

[driscoll]

he did that on purpose. he thought that he needed to become more consistent because in early fed matches he made a ton of UEs. he thought he could outgrind roger if he was more patient because he realized he could not hit through roger.

Well he couldnt be more mistaken. His only chance against Roger was to hit through him. That is how he beat him at the 2003 Canadian Masters, had chances at Wimbledon 2004. If he wanted to increase his chances further the obvious things to look at were:

1 (by far the biggest) improve his transition game, so he was hitting effective and smart approach shots when he came forward.

2. Improved his return of serve (not sure how much could be done here mind you).

3. Shored up his volleying which was already much improved, further.

4. Added a bit more disguise and variety to his 2 main weapons- the serve and forehand.


What was most hilarious and sad all the same was seeing him even trying to outgrind NADAL on a slow hard court twice at Indian Wells in the post Gilbert years. Seriously.

 

[President]

Well he couldnt be more mistaken. His only chance against Roger was to hit through him. That is how he beat him at the 2003 Canadian Masters, had chances at Wimbledon 2004. If he wanted to increase his chances further the obvious things to look at were:

1 (by far the biggest) improve his transition game, so he was hitting effective and smart approach shots when he came forward.

2. Improved his return of serve (not sure how much could be done here mind you).

3. Shored up his volleying which was already much improved, further.

4. Added a bit more disguise and variety to his 2 main weapons- the serve and forehand.


What was most hilarious and sad all the same was seeing him even trying to outgrind NADAL on a slow hard court twice at Indian Wells in the post Gilbert years. Seriously.

Roddick's 2011 US Open QF was one of the saddest displays I have ever seen, a truly savage beatdown. Roddick looked like a club player against Nadal, and was getting passed left and right. Nadal had him on a string with his forehand. Roddick should have hit out with his forehand but seemed dead set on his strategy, which failed epicly. It was at that point that I knew he should retire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOnR60b1jg

 

[driscoll]

Roddick's 2011 US Open QF was one of the saddest displays I have ever seen. Roddick looked like a club player against Nadal, it was at that point that I knew he should retire.

I honestly dont know what he was even trying to do it in that match. It looked like he was just hoping for Nadal to make a whole bunch of unforced errors to get the victory. I didnt expect him to win that match, but watching it I was stunned he seemed to have no game plan at all, no plans to attack Nadal.

 

[anantak2k]

I definitely agree with you. I think 2004 was one of his best chances because he was playing extremely well. That rain delay definitely saved Federer. 2009 on the other hand like you said was a sub-par version of Federer apart from his serving that day that really saved his ***. In 2009, even though he was close it was really bad on his part that he was unable to beat a version of Federer that wasn't much more than a serve bot. 2004 I really believe Roddick was playing better against a Federer that was playing very well too. Just a little bit unlucky that it rained.

I think part of being successful involves being lucky. Roddick was a bit lucky to win his one and only grandslam at the USO. But he was unlucky to lose 2004 and 2009 Wimby. Every great player are not only amazing champions but also have luck on their side more often than not. You can say that about several of Federer's titles. A champion is able to use that luck and convert on it

Looking back at those Wimbledon matches, if you go strictly by the score, you'd think that Wimbledon 2009 was the closest Roddick ever came to beating Federer, which is more or less true. I still believe to this day, that Wimbledon 2004 was where the real opportunity was for him. He had the serve and forehand still going for him back in those days and he clearly had Federer in the ropes before that rain delay allowed Federer to regroup and turn things around. In 2005, Roddick didn't stand a chance at Wimbledon, neither at the 2006 US Open. 2009 Wimbledon was really where he gave it all. If you look back at the match, Federer wasn't playing all that well based on his own standard. Good thing he was giving a serving clinic on that day because the rest of his game was average compared to what he displayed in the previous years. Roddick wasn't playing bad either, but he couldn't beat what was a subpar Federer in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Great post. I think if Roddick just had an average transitional net game (it didn't have to be Edberg, Rafter, McEnroe good) , a few of those matches with Federer at the slams probably would have gone in Roddick's favor. I wish Roddick would have worked on his attack and net game more than he did because as you said, most of the aspects of Roddick's game outside his serve and forehand indeed was LAUGHABLY BAD

Roddick couldn't follow up his serve by approaching the net because it was way too massive. With the polyester strings and lighter racket frames it is much easier to generate power (and spin), so the volleyer would have been caught behind the service line, after the return of serve, with the ball bellow the net, which is a bad position to hit the volley.

It's a common myth that the greatest serve and volley players could do the damage in today's game with their great hands. They would have been eaten alive with both return of their serves and passing shots from the back-court. Hewitt demonstrated that when he appeared - he made those serve-and-volley players look ordinary, all of them (Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Henman...).

 

[FD3S]

Roddick's 2011 US Open QF was one of the saddest displays I have ever seen, a truly savage beatdown. Roddick looked like a club player against Nadal, and was getting passed left and right. Nadal had him on a string with his forehand. Roddick should have hit out with his forehand but seemed dead set on his strategy, which failed epicly. It was at that point that I knew he should retire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOnR60b1jg

To be fair, his previous match with Ferrer had taken its toll on him - while his legs weren't totally shot, he wasn't recovered enough to offer up much of a challenge to Nadal, either. I mean, even when 100% his net-rushing tendencies weren't exactly of Sampras quality.

Plus, I have to think that somewhere in the back of his mind, Rafa wanted payback for their 2004 USO match

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDYsdEzp9is

 

[hoodjem]

he did that on purpose. he thought that he needed to become more consistent because in early fed matches he made a ton of UEs. he thought he could outgrind roger if he was more patient because he realized he could not hit through roger.

still a bad idea in the end. the 05-09 roddick did move a little better and had a better BH but still the "one dimensional" slugger of 01-04 was more dangerous. he still would have lost most matches but maybe on a "hot" day he could have done it at wimby.

OK, sounds quite plausible.

Are you saying he became less aggressive on his forehand in order to be more consistent, and maybe even took a little pace off the ball?

 

[FD3S]

OK, sounds quite plausible.

Are you saying he became less aggressive on his forehand in order to be more consistent, and maybe even took a little pace off the ball?

I'd say that's a safe assessment. 03-04 Roddick had obscene firepower off the FH wing, but he, like a lot of big hitters, could be prone to UE's. He wasn't so bad as to beat himself with huge error counts on a consistent basis, but against a guy like Federer (or Hewitt, or Agassi) they tended to add up, especially since his 03-04 BH was not nearly on the same level as his FH.

 

[NatF]

To be fair, his previous match with Ferrer had taken its toll on him - while his legs weren't totally shot, he wasn't recovered enough to offer up much of a challenge to Nadal, either. I mean, even when 100% his net-rushing tendencies weren't exactly of Sampras quality.

Plus, I have to think that somewhere in the back of his mind, Rafa wanted payback for their 2004 USO match

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDYsdEzp9is

I wish this Roddick showed up to the 2011 match. Would have been an awesome contest IMO.

 

[dominikk1985]

OK, sounds quite plausible.

Are you saying he became less aggressive on his forehand in order to be more consistent, and maybe even took a little pace off the ball?

yes. he focused on consistency and fitness later in his career.

I'm not sure this was a good decision. he was making a lot of UEs (not as consistent as other hard hitters like DP) but still while it probably would have costed him some matches the aggressive Roddick would have been more dangerous.