Roddick should retire

After the USO.

No longer good enough to even make 4R in his most favoured slam.

It's sad but his game has totally "decayed" shall we say.

He is a special case. Certainly not blessed with great talent but did the most of it.

Another obvious case of hard work paying more than talent. I can think of many players who are more talented, including Lopez. Yet Roddick has the slam, the high ranking points, while they have not.

As depressing as Andy's decline is, I must admit that if I had a career where I had earnt $566,550 so far this year, I wouldn't be in a rush to retire!

Roddick has head troubles, he seems to tilt easily when he can't have any effect on opponents serve.

His groundstrokes are really ugly these days - he used to really be aggresive off both wings....

The problem with roddick is very simple. He tries to be too secure by overspinning the ball instead of playing a looser more risky game.

If he wants to play like Nadal, he'd better develop Nadal's fitness.

Roddick never had a decent back-hand JM
It was/is mainly his serve that has helped him to the
wins in his career. But he's the last (apparently) of the
Great US Champions so good luck to whatever he does in
the future.

yummy ure wrong

Roddick in 03 to 06 had weapons off BOTH wings, he was more aggresive than Federer during that time, but his main problem was defence and court positioning.

Todays Roddick is a pale shade of the former.

JM

Roddick's backhand has been a liability through most of his career. It is only the odd times when it became effective that he really challenged (which often seems to coincide with working with a new coach).

As a young guy, he had a crushing forehand as well as a hammer of a serve, but in recent years he's tended to play with a bit more margin of safety on that side as well, using a heavy topspin that takes the pace out of the ball.

Tenez is largely right in his first post - there have been more gifted players than Roddick, but he's the one with the slam title, multiple finals and more money than you can shake a stick at. He's made the most of what he had (which was mostly that unique serve).

And Lopez was a darker shade of the former

He has made enormous progress since he has had his new coach.Losing almost a stone in weight
He well deserved that win making Roddick look pretty awful at times

yummymummy wrote:Roddick never had a decent back-hand JM
It was/is mainly his serve that has helped him to the
wins in his career. But he's the last (apparently) of the
Great US Champions so good luck to whatever he does in
the future.

I agree about the back hand, his forehand was always his big shot with his back handset being average at best

Roddick IMO only became labelled 'great' in an era where tennis was still in a slump.

Sampras was on his way out, Agassi was having a brief and entertaining swansong and Federer was starting to emerge. His only real competitors in his day were Hewitt and an ageing Rafter.

Clarke James wrote:Roddick IMO only became labelled 'great' in an era where tennis was still in a slump.

Sampras was on his way out, Agassi was having a brief and entertaining swansong and Federer was starting to emerge. His only real competitors in his day were Hewitt and an ageing Rafter.

I think that just about sums it up

You only have to look at Queen's winners between 2000 and 2007 to see thye had no real competition. And i'd wager it would look very different had Federer played there instead of Halle.

Clarke James wrote:Roddick IMO only became labelled 'great' in an era where tennis was still in a slump.

Sampras was on his way out, Agassi was having a brief and entertaining swansong and Federer was starting to emerge. His only real competitors in his day were Hewitt and an ageing Rafter.

Disagree. YOu have to look at the details. Roddick had an excellent serve and pretty good forehand at a time courts were still pretty fast and serve and volley, or just serve coudl get you somewhere. It's only after 2003 that players started to learn how to retrieve with those new strings. That was taking the main weapon out of Roddick like it woudl have done of Sampras too had he kept on playing. Is it to say that Pete belonged to a weak era cause nowadays he would have been crushed? No. it simply was the era going through a change and Roddick was one of the last player to have learnt tennis on fast conds.

PLus lets not forget that when he won his USO, he was 2 MPs down versus Nalbandian who in turn had beaten Federer. I am pretty sure that Nalbandian could have won that slam, unfortunately he was overwhelmed by an intimidating crowd. Had that slam been played in argentina, I think it's fair to say that Nalbandian would be the slammer.

Roddick like most of his generation who learnt and played on fast surface struggle when they have to rally too much. It has nothing to do with strong or weak era. He had a weapon but they took it out.

What if he's enjoying his tennis?

Should he still retire?

Tenez wrote:

Clarke James wrote:Roddick IMO only became labelled 'great' in an era where tennis was still in a slump.

Sampras was on his way out, Agassi was having a brief and entertaining swansong and Federer was starting to emerge. His only real competitors in his day were Hewitt and an ageing Rafter.

Disagree. YOu have to look at the details. Roddick had an excellent serve and pretty good forehand at a time courts were still pretty fast and serve and volley, or just serve coudl get you somewhere. It's only after 2003 that players started to learn how to retrieve with those new strings. That was taking the main weapon out of Roddick like it woudl have done of Sampras too had he kept on playing. Is it to say that Pete belonged to a weak era cause nowadays he would have been crushed? No. it simply was the era going through a change and Roddick was one of the last player to have learnt tennis on fast conds.

PLus lets not forget that when he won his USO, he was 2 MPs down versus Nalbandian who in turn had beaten Federer. I am pretty sure that Nalbandian could have won that slam, unfortunately he was overwhelmed by an intimidating crowd. Had that slam been played in argentina, I think it's fair to say that Nalbandian would be the slammer.

Roddick like most of his generation who learnt and played on fast surface struggle when they have to rally too much. It has nothing to do with strong or weak era. He had a weapon but they took it out.

Disagree.

Roddick came through at a time when Serve and Volley became a dying art. Guys like Sampras and Henman; masters of the technique were fading and big serving guys like Roddick, Ancic, Karlovic and Safin started to emerge. Granted he had a good forehand, but it wasn't always enough, he lacked tenacity, that's when Hewitt and Agassi pushed in and adapted the game to neutralise the big servers.

From Sampras' last win at Wimbledon, to Fed's first slam, only Roddick, Safin and Goran won slams out of the 'big servers', the rest was a mixture of Hewitt type players who adjusted their game, Kuerten, Agassi, Johannson, Costa, Ferrero.

Tenez,

I'd also mention that Roddick didn't develop a backhand until later on in his career when he started working with Jimmy Connors. By this point it was too late and the 'new breed' of players came through.

When you look at Agassi and Hewitt, both hand good serves, punchy forehands but more importantly a devestating backhand. All round they were better players than Roddick.

But it's one thing developing your reflexes on a fast surface and then being asked to play a different game on slower surfaces versus young guys who learnt to play on slow the rest of your career. Roddick's story is not unique. All those big servers faded away at the same time.

They simply did not learn to play tennis on the right surface at teh right time.

Roddick reached another USO final and only stopped by Federer again and while grass was still relatively fast, reached 2 wimbledon finals, even a 3rd time later only stopped by Federer.

If you look at it, Only Federer seems to have been able to adapt his game cause he had a more balanced (attacking/defence) one to start with and significantly more talent.

This is why I think it's a pace issue, coupled with technology (strings) giving the advantage to returners. Not an weak/strong era issue.

I am in no doubt that Pete like Ancic, Dent, you name it, woudl have struggled to make the transition. Sampras won 0 slams on clay, which certainly means he coudl have struggled on these slower surfaces too against much better returners equipped with much better racquet and fitness.

If you look at it, Only Federer seems to have been able to adapt his game cause he had a more balanced (attacking/defence) one to start with and significantly more talent.

I'd argue that Rafa falls under that bracket. Everyone labelled him (rightly so) as the king of clay, but in his early days (RG wins 1, 2 & 3) nobody felt his game would progress to the level where he would win on Hard and Grass. Yet he did, he developed his serve and improved his fitness, even shedding some of the bulk muscle that allowed him to dominate on clay to allow him to be more mobile on other surfaces.

Clarke James wrote:

If you look at it, Only Federer seems to have been able to adapt his game cause he had a more balanced (attacking/defence) one to start with and significantly more talent.

I'd argue that Rafa falls under that bracket. Everyone labelled him (rightly so) as the king of clay, but in his early days (RG wins 1, 2 & 3) nobody felt his game would progress to the level where he would win on Hard and Grass. Yet he did, he developed his serve and improved his fitness, even shedding some of the bulk muscle that allowed him to dominate on clay to allow him to be more mobile on other surfaces.

It's very different for Rafa. He learnt on slow court to play a physical game and then they slow all the courts around the world down. So if anything he gets some help while the big servers get penalised. Very different indeed.

Roddick cant possibly retire, why should he? He is making enough money and will be somewhere in the top 20. He is only 28. Has never been a great player but at least got a break and squeazed a slam

Quite varied opinions on here. I just like to stress that the topic is opinion so when someone gives an opinion, I don't like to see YOU ARE WRONG! It is either your agree or not.

In this case, I think the how fitness thing started with Hewitt and Roddick. I for one remember Roddick at the 2001 Wimbledon Championships and he didn't have the big serve and his action was much more erratic. I remember seeing a documentary on Roddick's fitness regime and he is by and large the fittest guy on tour if that was his work out! When he started to work with Gilbert he developed a serve. He had a solid BH, not one that would rack up winners, he has a big FH, not precise, but based on power. When he worked with Connors he tried coming into the net, but to me it wasn't the best of strategies because he got burnt down the lines. Now with Stefanki, he dropped 25lbs and to me looks like a better player.

If he still has the belief he can compete, then by all means continue. It's not like he is out of the top 20. Give the guy a break.

Roddick has been on tour for 11+ years. One loss should not determine his retirement prospects. Slams are about 127 players losing, to one winning.

Why is nobody giving credit to Lopez ... ??? Roddick never lost that match Lopez won it

Roddick is a product of the American Tennis System that Patrick McEnroe has misgivings about, i.e. the creation of players who essentially have a good serve and a forehand (cue...Roddick, Querrey, Isner) but little flexibility of movement and other tactics. In other words, they are pretty one dimensional. This was fine when they were all banging down shots on fast(er) DecoTurfII surfaces back in the day but not on the slower DecoTurfII you find these days and not on grass or clay. This is why he has spoken out for the US system to adopt a more clay-based training system to produce more rounded players.

Lets not forget that guys like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and even Berdych all learnt their trade on clay. Roddick didnt.

I agree that times and surfaces change and so the players need to have different games to compete in a game that is faster, longer ralley-based and more demanding of the players. The problem is that Roddick is a 1-dimensional player, his serve has always allowed him to do well at USO in the early 'fast' days, Queens and Wimbledon (which still takes a fast serve) but not other events. The game has moved on to become a much more testing challenge for players all round games - the problem is that Roddick isnt an all-round player. His backhand is agricultural at best, and he's tried to flatten his forehand out (hard for his Western grip) but seems to have lost rhythm on it in doing so. His movement is also suspect and a little wooden during longer ralleys.

In short, he's been overtaken by a group of more rounded and frankly more talented players - all brought up on clay. But he's had a good run - his competitiveness and will-power took him a long way, as it always does.

Haddie, it is a post about the future of a tennis star. If it is in relation to the match he participated in, we would be slightly edging off topic.

Just for record, Lopez played a great match. To win in 3 against a player who beat him only weeks ago on grass, is a good indication of how he was able to raise his game in a re-match in a Slam event

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why is nobody giving credit to Lopez ... ??? Roddick never lost that match Lopez won it

I have seen a vast improvement from him starting with his meeting in Madrid against Federer where they went hammer & tongs with each other, Roger winning I think after three tie-breaks.

Its usual always to say that the higher ranked player played badly without giving credit to in this case Lopez.

As for Roddick retiring I don't think so, at least not yet!

LK

I understand what you are saying but had Roddick beaten Lopez today this topic would never have been raised.
Quote
"No longer good enough to reach the 4th round in his favourite slam"

HE was not good enough...????? Not that Lopez was a better ????. so Why are you saying he was not good enough.. Because he didnt win ????. Moot point I think

And to be fair Lopez has been playing really well this year - including MP against Fed in Madrid.
And it was a close match today too, Roddick is not finished by any means.

But that is where the OP is lacking in conviction of his point.

He is saying that Roddick isn't good enough to reach the 4th round of Wimbledon, which by all accounts is true based on his current form

But...believe it or not I agree with the first post that Tenez made by saying Lopez is the better player, to which I agree and I am sure you would and that it is Roddick that has the points and Slam etc.

Sometimes stats don't reflect the true story

Well LK that may get round the point to a degree.
But I still say this topic would never have been raised had Roddick not been beaten soundly by (as you point out) a better player. But I have to agree again with Lydian ( ) that there has been a vast improvement in Lopez´s game this year.. as already mentioned.. new coach... loss of weight.. and dare I say it a great training partner i.e. Rafa no less. So it isn´t all down to Roddick´s lack of form (though I wouldn´t deny he is not the player he once was) but that albeit a bit late in his career another Spaniard who is playing spectacularly well.
Not that Im a fan of Spaniards you understamd

I agree that Lopez has improved and infact looks like the player from 2007 when he was in top form. I am a big fan of his movement and fluidity in when he makes his groundstrokes. With his recent slump last year, I could never understand it as the guy has talent.

The OP is trying to stir debate, but it is silly considering if you had asked 10 tennis fans who would win, I am sure 8 out 10 would've gone for Lopez Me being one of them. Shows the high regard people have for Lopez's tennis over Roddick's.

lol Haddie...

But that clay based training is paying off more and more for the players, even later into their careers. Lopez always had a great serve (possibly more variety than Roddick too) but has quicker movement, a nice backhand and good volleys...he's just never been able to bring it together before. As I said to hold MP against Federer on clay was a heck of an achievement - Roddick would never have achieved that.

Well as I understand it Lydian he and Rafa are training partners... not to mention best mates--- cant help thinking he may be picking up a few tips along the way... Any road.. he was a pleasure to watch today and as you say he has a wonderful movement on court, a great back hand and such an easy style. Good for him. Better late than never
Feliciano Longlegs !!!

lol, I know the ladies are often split between the spanish combo of Rafa, Verdie and Lopez

Agree that the mental stregnth of Rafa has probably rubbed off onto Rafa (and his win against Rafa at Queens last year may have helped too) because its only really his brain that's been lacking as he's always had the game. I think because he plays an easy style he's also preserved his joints, etc, pretty well so will have good longevity into the next 2-3 years.

Lopez is emerging as the potential dark horse of this year.
None of the top 10, even top 5 will want to face him.

Well I wont even have the good grace to blush at my age... but hey !!!!

Agreed he could well be the danger man this year.

Lopez is a good player but let's not get carried away. Beating Roddick nowadays can be pretty easy. Murray did that in a very convincing fashion 2 weeks ago.

Roddick oftens struggles versus one handed BH cause they usually have more talent and can move him around and anticipate better.

Well wouldn´t you know ... someone has to "rain on the parade"

Indeed Haddie, and considering 9 out of the top 10 have double-handed backhands I wouldnt say SHBH's have more "talent" either - surely the SHBH's in the top 100 would be littering the top 10 if they were more talented. I also dont remember anyone saying Lopez is going to win the title but he could do damage along the way.

Well those with a SH BH I wonder who he was talking about... Ahhh of course Gasquet

I have a SHBH!!! Don't knock it!!

Im not knocking it LK... good for you... Tenez would say you have more talent than Murray in that case

I have thought about maybe using the DHBH like me brother

SHBH is sooooooooooooooo classic !

My SHBH is NOT !!!!!!!!!!!

A SHBH requires greater timing and has a smaller sweet spot.

A DHBH had a bigger sweet spot and requires less timing to generate power. However it requires better fitness, especially abdominal fitness.

This is why physical players have a DBHB. less risky and can therefore engage into rallies without worrying about mistiming.

I can sleep better for knowing that

Haddie? Wasn't it you earlier today who said you weren't going to get into debates with Tenez anymore?

Davie wrote:Haddie? Wasn't it you earlier today who said you weren't going to get into debates with Tenez anymore?

It was a comment .. not a debate and it totally amazes me Davie how you manage to remember everything I SAY but never what he says... I am left to draw my own conclusions from that but as usual you want to make your comments to me public.. then remember I have the right to reply OK Ill assume on this occasion you are speaking as a member and not a moderator....correct ???

Totally correct. My comment was as Davie the member, not Davie the admin.

However, as Davie the admin I would say the following.

You are totally within your rights to reply to any post you like. The member's comment was to point out how you are sick of Tenez and that you want no more to do with him. That also is your right. However to continue harassing him the way you do is worthy of comment after you have said you won't do it any more

Tenez is frequently critical of certain players. It may well be that thoses players happen to be your favourites. That is where debate comes in. You are entitled to debate the point or you are entitled to ignore the poster. You are even entitled to have your own little stab at other players who aren't your favourites. The tennis players aren't members here; they are public figures and as long as it doesn't get libelous, they are fair game. What is NOT fair game is to continually harass other members, whether you agree with them or not