Why Roddick hasn't won a Slam since 2003

[Djokolate]

The obvious reason is that perhaps he isn't quite skilled enough. Still I think he easily could have won the 2009 Wimbledon if he just made that easy volley at set point in the tiebreak.

The other obvious reason is that players like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are just better than him.

Mmmhmm.....

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

OK I already mentioned that the faster courts of the 90s would have worked in Roddick's favor.

Think about the type of game which was best suited for the faster courts....then seriously apply Roddick's game to said surface.

Outside of Sampras at Wimbledon (who still could be beaten as Kraijicek and Ivanisevic showed), there was no dominant force the level of Federer at the other 3 majors. None. That in and of itself makes me believe Roddick's chances at the USO and AO would be greater, though we all know he had no shot at RG in any era. Wimbledon's a bit more tricky to predict, but I certainly believe he could have won 1-2 titles there during the 90s.

I cannot see him outplaying Kraijeck or Goran during that period. Then, add in Edberg, Becker and--of course--Sampras, and the chances of a Wimbledon victory appear slim to none. Regarding dominant forces at the other majors, in the 90's, take the USO; remember Sampras won 4 USO in that decade ('90, '93, '95 & '96), then, Edberg, Rafter and Agassi all won two each, so there were no fluke champions, with Sampras, Edberg and Rafter proving they were formidable enough to repeat. Roddick against any of the named players does not add up to a Roddick victory, considering how each played to win their respective USO titles.

 

[Fiji]

The slowing down of the surfaces at the slams?

 

[TMF]

Think about the type of game which was best suited for the faster courts....then seriously apply Roddick's game to said surface.

If you think Roddick is going to play the exact same game in any the previous era then you are fooling yourself. Different conditions and playing field force player to tweak their game. No sense to think players wouldn't make any changes.

 

[MARTINBALDRIDGE]

A-Rod fan

I remembernwhen Roddick came up and thru to win the Us Open. He was so young, free and uninhibited.

He also hen had Brad Gilbert in his corner. Despite Gilberts constant rants there's no doubt he helped get the most out of Andy.

I think his demise started when they split (for whatever reason) Remember Gilbert stayed with Agassi for 8 years but only a couple with A-Rod.

Andy is still a brilliant player, but not brilliant enough any more. Stefanki did/does a brilliant job with him, but in the biggest moments, like the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddicks lack of natural volleying ability was shown up at the crucial moments. You ccild rightly argue that he was truly unlucky in that match - part from then though I can't remember him being anywhere nearna Slam win

Pity though cos I,m a huge fan.

The Tennis Guy

 

[NamRanger]

He's definitely been good enough, in any other era he'd probably have 4-5 slams. He's just had the GOAT standing in his way. He still should have beaten Fed at least once to get another slam (Wimby 09 being the best shot) but still, there's a difference between not being 'good enough' and being good enough but someone just being better.

Oh the irony from a Roddick hater. Didn't you say Federer wasn't an excuse for Roddick not winning anymore slams? Backtracking now?

Think about the type of game which was best suited for the faster courts....then seriously apply Roddick's game to said surface.





I cannot see him outplaying Kraijeck or Goran during that period. Then, add in Edberg, Becker and--of course--Sampras, and the chances of a Wimbledon victory appear slim to none. Regarding dominant forces at the other majors, in the 90's, take the USO; remember Sampras won 4 USO in that decade ('90, '93, '95 & '96), then, Edberg, Rafter and Agassi all won two each, so there were no fluke champions, with Sampras, Edberg and Rafter proving they were formidable enough to repeat. Roddick against any of the named players does not add up to a Roddick victory, considering how each played to win their respective USO titles.

Agassi was prone to lose to anyone in the 90s except during that one summer stretch in 95 where he was literally unstoppable until the USO final. Kraijeck and Goran were both wildly inconsistent, especially off of grass. Roddick is a big server with a much stronger mentality than Goran; I think if it came down to clutch situations Roddick would come out on top more times then not.

Hypothetically speaking Edberg would have waned out after the early 90s (wasn't a dominant force at some point), and Rafter wasn't a great player (although very good). He did have a couple of breaks that went his way that Roddick didn't have. And lets not even talk about Becker, whose play in the early to mid 90s was incredibly inconsistent everywhere except Wimbledon.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Faster surfaces wouldn't help Roddick at all, his record indoors for example isn't great. He hold serve in the 90 percentile anyway but his un penetrating groundstrokes and average return would get exposed. For Roddick's grinding style game, I think todays conditions are perfect for him.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Oh the irony from a Roddick hater. Didn't you say Federer wasn't an excuse for Roddick not winning anymore slams? Backtracking now?

Yes I'm backtracking. I'm a political science major after all, it's in our nature to flip-flop.

 

[14OuncesStrung]

One simple reason.
He won't unload on his groundstrokes enough and GO FOR BROKE.

 

[CDNguy87]

I think one of the biggest things that doesn't get touched on a lot is his extremely low tennis IQ. I think it's definitely the lowest of any current Top 10 player and possibly near the bottom out of any Slam winners. I noticed this a long time ago with him, but I didn't truly appreciate its extent until I saw his match with Tipsarevic last year at the USO.

Janko completely controlled the play and had a great awareness in most points of when to go for the big shot, when to pull back a bit, and when to just let Roddick shoot himself in the foot. In contrast, Roddick showed almost no court awareness and was completely unable or unwilling to make any strategic adjustments as the match progressed, despite being clearly outplayed. He also gets completely outsmarted in his Federer matches of course, but Federer's sheer talent makes it much more excusable.

His mediocore return also doesn't help matters. I think the combination of this along with his low tennis IQ explains why he tends to lose so many tight 5-setters against big servers in matches with very few breaks (Karlovic, Isner, Lu). A smarter player might be able to pick up on these huge servers' tendencies over the course of an entire match and earn the occasional break even without being a great returner. However, Roddick doesn't seem to be capable of this. He seems to enter every match with one strategy and once that starts failing or his opponent makes smart adjustments, he's screwed.

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

I think one of the biggest things that doesn't get touched on a lot is his extremely low tennis IQ. I think it's definitely the lowest of any current Top 10 player and possibly near the bottom out of any Slam winners. I noticed this a long time ago with him, but I didn't truly appreciate its extent until I saw his match with Tipsarevic last year at the USO.

Janko completely controlled the play and had a great awareness in most points of when to go for the big shot, when to pull back a bit, and when to just let Roddick shoot himself in the foot. In contrast, Roddick showed almost no court awareness and was completely unable or unwilling to make any strategic adjustments as the match progressed, despite being clearly outplayed. He also gets completely outsmarted in his Federer matches of course, but Federer's sheer talent makes it much more excusable.

His mediocore return also doesn't help matters. I think the combination of this along with his low tennis IQ explains why he tends to lose so many tight 5-setters against big servers in matches with very few breaks (Karlovic, Isner, Lu). A smarter player might be able to pick up on these huge servers' tendencies over the course of an entire match and earn the occasional break even without being a great returner. However, Roddick doesn't seem to be capable of this. He seems to enter every match with one strategy and once that starts failing or his opponent makes smart adjustments, he's screwed.

Roddick has shown the ability to make in-match adjustments on several occasions. He's simply stubborn, and has a tendency, particularly against lower-ranking opposition, to hold on to the belief that the other guy's level of play will drop off if he just persists in playing defense long enough, hence the way he never really changed what he was doing against Tipsarevic- he said himself that he kept expecting Tipsarevic to start missing. It doesn't help matters in the long-term that much of the time, when Roddick thinks this, he's right; for example, Haase really did cool down and start making errors after playing an amazing first set against Roddick a few weeks ago in Australia. The "stay-consistent-and-wait-for-the-other-guy's-play-to-decline" strategy works often enough for Roddick that it takes a lot to persuade him to change it, particularly against underdog opponents, and so his losses often involve his simply getting entrenched in that kind of play until he is beaten.

To see Roddick making smart tactical adjustments and turning contests around, watch his match with Nadal in the semifinals of Miami last year, or with Hewitt in Memphis last week.

Oh, and one slight nitpick: Roddick has never lost a five-setter to Karlovic.

 

[Mick]

the reason being federer, nadal, djokovic, and del potro kept on winning them so nobody else had a chance! :shock:

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Roddick has shown the ability to make in-match adjustments on several occasions. He's simply stubborn, and has a tendency, particularly against lower-ranking opposition, to hold on to the belief that the other guy's level of play will drop off if he just persists in playing defense long enough, hence the way he never really changed what he was doing against Tipsarevic- he said himself that he kept expecting Tipsarevic to start missing. It doesn't help matters in the long-term that much of the time, when Roddick thinks this, he's right; for example, Haase really did cool down and start making errors after playing an amazing first set against Roddick a few weeks ago in Australia. The "stay-consistent-and-wait-for-the-other-guy's-play-to-decline" strategy works often enough for Roddick that it takes a lot to persuade him to change it, particularly against underdog opponents, and so his losses often involve his simply getting entrenched in that kind of play until he is beaten.

To see Roddick making smart tactical adjustments and turning contests around, watch his match with Nadal in the semifinals of Miami last year, or with Hewitt in Memphis last week.

Oh, and one slight nitpick: Roddick has never lost a five-setter to Karlovic.

QFT. 10 char

 

[CDNguy87]

Roddick has shown the ability to make in-match adjustments on several occasions. He's simply stubborn, and has a tendency, particularly against lower-ranking opposition, to hold on to the belief that the other guy's level of play will drop off if he just persists in playing defense long enough, hence the way he never really changed what he was doing against Tipsarevic- he said himself that he kept expecting Tipsarevic to start missing. It doesn't help matters in the long-term that much of the time, when Roddick thinks this, he's right; for example, Haase really did cool down and start making errors after playing an amazing first set against Roddick a few weeks ago in Australia. The "stay-consistent-and-wait-for-the-other-guy's-play-to-decline" strategy works often enough for Roddick that it takes a lot to persuade him to change it, particularly against underdog opponents, and so his losses often involve his simply getting entrenched in that kind of play until he is beaten.

To see Roddick making smart tactical adjustments and turning contests around, watch his match with Nadal in the semifinals of Miami last year, or with Hewitt in Memphis last week.

I definitely went too far in my previous post by implying that he never makes in-match adjustments, but I think my general point about his low tennis IQ (especially in comparison with other Top 10 players) is still valid. There's no way any differential in talent and shot-making ability between them can entirely account for a 2-20 record against Federer.

Oh, and one slight nitpick: Roddick has never lost a five-setter to Karlovic.

Sorry, I meant Cilic (2010 AO), not Karlovic.