Roddick Would Be A Multi Slam Winning Great...

Roddick would be a multi slam winning great if it wasn't for his nemesis Federer.

In 2003 Roddick must have been one of the favourites for Wimbledon. With his consistant and deathly serve he must have looked difficult to beat. At just 20 it must have appeared that his prospects for winning slams particuarly on grass and at the US Open looked good. But what happened...

He lost to Federer in the 2003 Wimbledon semi's. Roddick went on to win the US Open that year. Few at the time would have thought it would prove to be his sole slam victory...

In 2004 he lost the Wimbledon final to Federer 6-4 5-7 6-7 4-6

In 2005 he lost the Wimbledon final to Federer 2-6 6-7 4-6

In 2006 he lost the US Open final to Federer 2-6 6-4 5-7 1-6

In 2009 he lost the Wimbledon final to Federer 7-5 6-7 6-7 6-3 14-16

Federer was never as troubled by Roddicks serve as other players. Roddick always appeared to be in an uphill struggle in these matches but he always put up a fight. After so many slam final losses to the same player the later matches must have been very difficult mentally.

Usually I support Federer but in 2009 I was cheering for Roddick. Sometimes there are not enough trophies to go round...

Ive never noticed this before.........

Sometimes I feel like Roddick has been unlucky, but when I see him playing now I'm glad he hasn't won more, its hard to believe he ever won a slam.

Chydremion wrote:Sometimes I feel like Roddick has been unlucky, but when I see him playing now I'm glad he hasn't won more, its hard to believe he ever won a slam.

It's not fair to judge the Roddick of yester year based on the current one. He is a pale shadow of himself.

The young Roddick played in faster conditions that were more conducive to his game. He had a great serve and a booming FH. He was a threat to everyone except Federer.

emancipator wrote:

Chydremion wrote:Sometimes I feel like Roddick has been unlucky, but when I see him playing now I'm glad he hasn't won more, its hard to believe he ever won a slam.

It's not fair to judge the Roddick of yester year based on the current one. He is a pale shadow of himself.

The young Roddick played in faster conditions that were more conducive to his game. He had a great serve and a booming FH. He was a threat to everyone except Federer.

Roddick of 2009 and 2010 was about 10 times the player he was in 2003. Roddick lost weight, built up his backhand, added a slice backhand which he had none of in 2003, and became a better volleyer. I wish he would have beaten FEd in 09 he deserved it. But Fed is just too good. Roddick had a great career made a lot off endorsements here in the states and did get his 15 minutes of sunshine at #1 and winning the USO. But I think Roddick is kind of like an Ivansivic type player, maybe with less ability actually so I think he pretty much is well placed at one slam or two. He isn't much better than that, a player with one and half weapons and lot of weaknesses in his overrall game. Maybe one of the worst returners I can remember watching at least early on in his career and he isn't much better at it now.

It's good to see some positive comment by way of counter-balance to the unreasonably harsh judgement by Chrydremion. I'd say that Andy Roddick was as worthy a Slam winner as any past 'single Slam' winners - and more so than some. He also made it to Number One (unlike many other Slam winners) even if only very briefly, and IMO the rankings don't lie.

Despite the series of key losses to Federer highlighted by the OP, Roddick at least shares a particular achievement jointly with his nemesis Fed, and one of which he can be justly proud. The two of them are - I'm pretty certain - the only active players to have finished in the year-end Top Ten for at least nine consecutive years, starting way back in 2002. I say "at least" because Fed's Top Ten reign continues uninterrupted of course, whereas Andy's long spell finally came to an end last year.

Roddick has a very impressive career W/L ratio overall, and 30 official titles to his name. All in all it's a very respectable CV, and although he hasn't achieved as much as he would have wished/expected, he can surely look back to the day he first turned pro and tell himself that the sport has been pretty good to him (and of course he might not have snapped up the lovely Ms. Decker had he never made it as a top tennis pro ...... )

And as for Roddick being stopped so many times at the Slams : well he's got a kindred spirit there in another former USO champ in the shape of L. Hewitt Esq. Few people must have grown to hate the sight of Federer across the net more than c'mon Hewitt. Out of 28 sets played across eight different Slam meetings versus Federer, Hewitt (even at full fitness !!) has managed to win a grand total of just four sets. At least Roddick took four sets in just the four clashes listed by HE.

At the end of the day, Federer was just too good for Roddick. But - along with Hewitt - he is one of many, many players who have seen their Slam progress stopped abruptly by Federer and there's no shame in that. I would, however, agree with Socal that Roddick did deserve to get the Wimbledon trophy he so craved in that 2009 five setter. It was clear to all watching that he would never again come so close, and I'm pretty sure that Andy knew as much himself ........ You could see it in his eyes.

socal1976 wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Chydremion wrote:Sometimes I feel like Roddick has been unlucky, but when I see him playing now I'm glad he hasn't won more, its hard to believe he ever won a slam.

It's not fair to judge the Roddick of yester year based on the current one. He is a pale shadow of himself.

The young Roddick played in faster conditions that were more conducive to his game. He had a great serve and a booming FH. He was a threat to everyone except Federer.

Roddick of 2009 and 2010 was about 10 times the player he was in 2003. Roddick lost weight, built up his backhand, added a slice backhand which he had none of in 2003, and became a better volleyer. I wish he would have beaten FEd in 09 he deserved it. But Fed is just too good. Roddick had a great career made a lot off endorsements here in the states and did get his 15 minutes of sunshine at #1 and winning the USO. But I think Roddick is kind of like an Ivansivic type player, maybe with less ability actually so I think he pretty much is well placed at one slam or two. He isn't much better than that, a player with one and half weapons and lot of weaknesses in his overrall game. Maybe one of the worst returners I can remember watching at least early on in his career and he isn't much better at it now.

It's not like you to exaggerate is it

Roddick was a far more dangerous player 03-06. His weapons were sharp and it's weapons that win slams (just ask Murray).

There is no way that Roddick was a better net player in the last few years. He's actually become more of a clueless net rusher in recent years. In the past he could hang with Federer from the back of the court and his FH was potent.

In your quest to make all things post 2008 better you've developed selective memory. The Roddick of 03-06 was a far more dangerous player particularly on the faster surfaces.



emancipator

Roddick in early 2010 came within a set of pulling off the indian wells miami double and in 09 at wimby he played his great slam match and had the closest loss of any of his slams to federer, a match that he should have won. I watched Roddick in 03, he was a highly inferior player to the 09 and 10 Roddick. His backhand was poor with no slice and no up the line at all in 2003. Seriously, watching Rod in 03 everyone thought he would win many more slams because he had so many rough edges to his game. But he was never able to solidify his weaknesses enough and the new generation of Gazza, Berdy, Sod, murray, nadal, and Djoko came in a pretty much superseded roddick, ferrero, hewitt, and many of his contemporaries. Roddick was what 19 or 20 in 2003? He did not degrade the competition got tougher, Roddick's slam win 2003 was sort of one of those last chance slams, and credit to Roddick for having the clutchness and the weapon and a half needed to win a slam back then.

Roddick is maybe the best grass player never to have got his hands on Wimbledon trophy. He might have beaten Roger if he stopped serving to his forehand side.