Because they winWhat's the difference?
What's the difference?
His forehand was not a weapon anymore , his serve got weak, his footwork got worse and mentantally he never recovered after the tragic outcome of Wimbledon final 2009.
What's the difference?
A lot of players deal with injuries and slow down and never play their best again. Big 3 were all incredibly lucky to never get injured that badly or to have such an insane movement level to fall back from that even after slowing down their defense is still good enough to dominate everyone else.Probably because he wasn't prepared to do PEDS or doping to stay strong in competitive tennis. Also to skip anyone questioning the vague implications of that comment then yeah i am absolutely saying that i think Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all on something to keep them as strong as they currently are. Federer grunting hard in the second set against Nadal in the Wimbledon SF yet looks completely fine in the final that went for almost 5 hours against Djokovic? Please.
Also this isn't just Roddick, look at almost any past great player from 1-2 slams to 10+ and look at the ages they retire. It's not just "talent" that keeps them involved and it's certainly not the current age of technology and legal treatments or everyone would be lasting forever. Talent keeps you winning, it doesn't keep you healthy and with seemingly unlimited stamina. I know this is an aggressive opinion based on speculation but i think it's naive to act like they are 100% clean.
All three of them coincidentally have extraordinary endurance and longevity, as well as talent? There is something new happening to the sport, some secret advantage not yet pinpointed.Probably because he wasn't prepared to do PEDS or doping to stay strong in competitive tennis. Also to skip anyone questioning the vague implications of that comment then yeah i am absolutely saying that i think Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are all on something to keep them as strong as they currently are. Federer grunting hard in the second set against Nadal in the Wimbledon SF yet looks completely fine in the final that went for almost 5 hours against Djokovic? Please.
Also this isn't just Roddick, look at almost any past great player from 1-2 slams to 10+ and look at the ages they retire. It's not just "talent" that keeps them involved and it's certainly not the current age of technology and legal treatments or everyone would be lasting forever. Talent keeps you winning, it doesn't keep you healthy and with seemingly unlimited stamina. I know this is an aggressive opinion based on speculation but i think it's naive to act like they are 100% clean.
If it weren’t for the existence of his nemesis Federer, you might have been right.When I first saw Roddick play ;I knew he win 8 majors or more...
Damn was I wrong
Actually, tennis is feeling a void now until the next Roddick arrives.Because he couldn't keep up with the evolution of tennis.
What does that mean “like Roddick?” Aside from his serve, there was nothing remarkable about him.
Because he couldn't keep up with the evolution of tennis.
The slowing down of the surfaces amplified Roddick’s decline immensely. It makes me wonder what would happen today if they sped up the surfaces immensely while regulating racket size to a max size of 90 square inches.
Come on stop it, Roddick himself said he would get wrecked by post-2011 NovakImagine the h2h if he had evolved.
Come on stop it, Roddick himself said he would get wrecked by post-2011 Novak
Actually two reasons
1. Unfortunately he had to face Fed everytime he made it deep.
2, Slowing down USO and Wimb. with a fast court, he had enough on serve and FH - to win multiple majors.
This is so true. Winners become addicted with winning and being the best. Its the identity. ATGs would run thru a wall for another win.Because they win