Stuttgart court is just so pleasing to the eye after a month or so of clay-clay-clay.
Tennis 2017
- Thread starter The Man Himself
- Start date
- Status
Nothing quite like the lovely clay
Peak Roddick had a huge forehand and excellent movement on court. He was constantly around the top 3 or top 5 whilst being stopped by peak Federer on his favorite surfaces.
Take Murray for example, would he have done better than Roddick against that Federer?
Over the hill Federer owns him in all GS tournaments and at 34/35 has 5 straight wins over him losing 1 set including a bagel and a breadstick in the 2014 ATP finals.
Peak Roddick would've done much better against this field rather than Murray, yet he's called a serve bot.
If you are looking at a rubbish #1 look no further than this year IMO
Think it has to do with Djokovic losing interest with the weak field and Nadal/Fed falling off in the last two years. He took it easy and expected everything to go his way and then fell back.
The thing is, regardless of importance of slams I can't put Nadal above Sampras for example because he never really dominated the field. He dominated clay, but never was the best player on tour bar 2010. It was for about a half an year from MC till the USO in 2010 when you can safely call him the best player on tour. Before that was Federer's era and after that Djokovic's.
Peak Roddick had a huge forehand and excellent movement on court. He was constantly around the top 3 or top 5 whilst being stopped by peak Federer on his favorite surfaces.
Take Murray for example, would he have done better than Roddick against that Federer?
Over the hill Federer owns him in all GS tournaments and at 34/35 has 5 straight wins over him losing 1 set including a bagel and a breadstick in the 2014 ATP finals.
Peak Roddick would've done much better against this field rather than Murray, yet he's called a serve bot.
If you are looking at a rubbish #1 look no further than this year IMO
I think Murray is a great player in the wrong era tbh. I don't really like him much myself but you can't deny the fact that he's a pretty consistent player who also would have had a lot more Slams in any other era. Having to play Federer, Nadal and Djoko all at or close to their peaks makes it almost impossible to win Slams and yet he's been competitive. I'm not sure a peak Roddick would have done any better against these guys at all also. The likes of Raonic also don't really harm Djoko.Nadal much so I don't think Roddick would have done much better. You put him in a long rally and more often than not he seemed to struggle.
I think he just lost motivation after winning RG finally and I think that, so far, differentiates Nadal and Federer from him. At his peak he was probably even more dominant (in a tougher field) than those two but losing the motivation that easily is a shame. This time last year he held all 4 Slams and now he's not even making it to semis anymore. I think he'll comeback though eventually. He's young enough to win 2-3 more Slams easily.
Think people tend to forget what Roddick was about 10-15 years ago. When his movement faded and his forehand became loopy with a lot of spin it was different Roddick in the end of his career. Still that older Roddick held his own against pretty much peak Nadal and Djokovic.
It's not a question of how well he will do as Roddick of 2009 and 2010 was beating Murray, Djokovic and Nadal regularly and was pretty much different player to the one 5 years ago.
If you just compare Roddick of 2004 and 2005 to the one in 2009/2010 you will see massive difference in movement, forehand, etc.
I don't see how Murray is better than him for example. Murray is more versatile and overall the more complete tennis player, but his second serve is WTA level. For one he was lucky to coincide this era and Federer on the wane as you put Murray in 2004 till 2009 and he ends up with 0 slams. Roddick was beaten in 8 slam encounters by Federer when he was at or near his peak. Old Federer is 5-1 vs Murray usually straight setting him in slams.
Let's not forget that during that time when Roddick was playing Murray would have to almost 100% face Federer everywhere like him, or Safin at the AO in 2005. Either way he's losing those matches.
Off peak Roddick was troubling those guys I think it's a bit off reality to suggest he'll be worse if you take the 2004/2005 Roddick.
Yeah he should bounce back. Disagree about the field tho. Besides Rafa, Fed and Murray the others were a bit of disappointments. Especially the young guns who were always prospects but never became anything more.
Hope Kyrgios and Zverev pick it up because tennis will fall into a huge hole once Federer/Nadal and Djoko retire.
young Murray was pretty good against peak Fed; he beat him like 6 or 7 times in their first 10 matches. Fed has better head to head record on GS and Murray leads 6-3 on ATP 1000 tournaments. I can't stand him, but he's twice the player Roddick was.
imo, Roddick probably wasn't even the best of the bunch in those days, but Nalbandian just couldn't be arsed so he won nothing except that marvelous final against Fed.
imo, Roddick probably wasn't even the best of the bunch in those days, but Nalbandian just couldn't be arsed so he won nothing except that marvelous final against Fed.
I am a huge Rafa fan but still think that federer is better than him. Anyone who believes that Sampras was better than Rafa is just speaking absolute rubbish though.
Come on, people, I thought the GOAT debate (which I honestly think is a bit early to have, considering the players aren't done with the sport yet) was just between Fed and Rafa. Let them both retire then we can assess their respective careers and have a better discussion. Those who think Rafa doesn't even make the Top 2 seem to forget:
-He's one of very few to have won GS tourneys in their teens, 20s and now 30s
-He's one of an elite group to have won all four Slams (achieved it before even Fed who is older and reached the top earlier did)
-He's been out of the game due to injury for extended periods yet always comes back and challenges for top trophies
-He's got a better career h2h record against the guy who is unanimously in the GOAT discussion, even during the said guy's peak
-He learnt and adapted his game to be able to challenge over all surfaces, making the finals multiple times on less-favoured surfaces
I could go on and on, but what more could he do in order to enter the GOAT debate? I feel like even if he does eventually overtake Fed in total GS records, some will still deem him an unfit to be GOAT because he won (admittedly many) more of RG.
-He's one of very few to have won GS tourneys in their teens, 20s and now 30s
-He's one of an elite group to have won all four Slams (achieved it before even Fed who is older and reached the top earlier did)
-He's been out of the game due to injury for extended periods yet always comes back and challenges for top trophies
-He's got a better career h2h record against the guy who is unanimously in the GOAT discussion, even during the said guy's peak
-He learnt and adapted his game to be able to challenge over all surfaces, making the finals multiple times on less-favoured surfaces
I could go on and on, but what more could he do in order to enter the GOAT debate? I feel like even if he does eventually overtake Fed in total GS records, some will still deem him an unfit to be GOAT because he won (admittedly many) more of RG.
Murray nearly destroyed Nalbandian as a 17 year old, so people need to respect the guy.. he is a sensational talent in his own right, who was unlucky to have his peak cross the best three of all time.
Thats not to say Murray would have been an all time great in his own right, but certainly a more gifted player than Roddick.
Nice to see some rare defence of Roddick. Guy gets waaaaaaaay too much flack. Federer literally crippled his soul, Wimby 2009 was so so tough to watch knowing how much Roddick truly deserved a Wimbledon, literally left it all on the court that day, and still lost. Just didn't match up. But no way he would of gone 0-8 against Novak, Murray or Nadal.
Roddick is levels above Nalbandian. Just because one matched up fairly well against Federer doesn't change that.
Roddick is levels above Nalbandian. Just because one matched up fairly well against Federer doesn't change that.
No he isn't levels above Nalbandian. Nalbandian like Safin got crippled by injuries at his peak and then never recovered fully.
Safin also got crippled by being Safin and not giving enough of a shit.
He would've been unstoppable for years if he had put in the work Murray has put in. I miss the guy to this day.
Safin is also way ahead of Nalbandian, what a shitty name drop for no reason. Safin on sheer talent is way way up there, his lack of determination and half assing it was his downfall far more than injuries. His crushing of Pete and classic with Fed in AO05 are proof of his sheer talent....massive waste though still.
Nalbandian is way behind both, and Hewitt. Good solid player, but yeah no.
Nalbandian is way behind both, and Hewitt. Good solid player, but yeah no.
It's tough to compare them tbh. Nalbandian is as talented as you can get. Maybe up there with the very best of his generation, but the lack of focus and generally lazy attitude should not be counted as an excuse. Same goes for Safin and generally you can pin a lot of those injury issues on that.
It's a pity as Safin and Nalbandian were one of my favorite players on tour.
Last edited:
Hewitt shat on Sampras too, though.
Murray has had obvious fitness issues which only now look to be ceasing. His elbow ruined his serve and the shingles took a good six weeks out of his year.
He'll be back competing soon enough. There were signs of that last week.
So what odds would you get on Nadal equalling, or even passing Federer's record? Given how dominant he is on clay, it's not inconceivable that he could win another 3 or 4 at the French, though that'd require an almost superhuman consistency. If he's fit and the other top players show signs of being fallible, he could take a few elsewhere. What do people reckon his final tally will be?
I'll go with a nice round 18. He and Roger sail off into the sunset together, Thelma and Louise style, destined to play the same exhibition match 5 times a year for the next 20 years.
I'll go with a nice round 18. He and Roger sail off into the sunset together, Thelma and Louise style, destined to play the same exhibition match 5 times a year for the next 20 years.
Djokovic has now dropped to number 4 in the rankings. He definitely needs a good performance at Wimbledon otherwise he could slide further.
Agree with this. Murray has been competing in an era with arguably the three best players of all time who have each dominated a specific surface. The fact Murray has been as successful as he has is very impressive. They've forced him to be a better player than he would have been otherwise and even though he is beaten in some categories I would have him well ahead of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, Moya, Rios, Nalbandian etc.
No. Hewitt and Roddick were better imo. Especially Roddick. He's underrated since Federer made him look like a chump
Hewitt and Roddick were better than Murray? Nah can't be having that. Murray has won more masters and slams than both of them. There's no debate. Murray had a better h2h against Roddick. Only played Hewitt once because he was so crap after 2004 that he rarely reach the latter stages of a tournament.
I'd take peak Roddick over peak Murray at any time on grass and fast hard courts.
I agree that Roddick is underrated but I still wouldn't have him higher than Murray. I don't think Hewitt is close tbh - he doesn't have any real weapons. If all three were at their best I think Murray would win 7 or 8 out of 10 matches. I'm a pretty big Murray fan though.
Murray shits all over Roddick.
Just hope Nadal doesnt completely go to shit as soon as he steps on the grass court.
Don't expect at wimbledon tbh. But I think he can do some damage at the US Open though. Shame it's not as prestige and that
A couple of different circumstances and it's easy to imagine the Grand Slams Federer, Djokovic and Nadal won being completely differently distributed. Djokovic particularly has been very unlucky and hopefully he wins a few more to be able to stand side by side with the other two because he definitely deserves it. There's no way there's a difference in quality between him and Federer of 6 Grand Slams. Federer is the best one to watch but I'd put them all side by side.
Please tell me you're joking.
You can say that, or you can say he's been lucky to be contending with a primarily over the hill Fed and injury prone Nadal since he entered his peak.
At the end of the day you have to take advantage of the circumstances or fight against setbacks. Some like to denigrate Fed's Slams in the mid-2000s but as Murray's and Djokovic's performance this year demonstrated, you can be up against a weak field and still fail to dominate.
Murray 2nd serve is WTA level. For one he's a bit overrated than underrated.
In 2015 AO I think Madison Keys was clocking higher mph's on average in her second serve just to put it in perspective. As much as Roddick is labeled as serve bot, the serve itself is the most important shot in the game and just that ability(to hold it) can win you matches.
Murray is competing in an era where Federer and Nadal have been already over the hill and his only 2 obstacles to slams are Djokovic and Wawrinka. The field is really weak apart from those guys. You have Nishikori and Cilic competing for slams who wouldn't get a sniff 10 years ago, same for the so called new guys like Raonic and Dimitrov. Nalbandian, Hewitt and Safin at least faced peak Federer instead of the older, slower version of him(which of course is still pretty good).
Murray's head to head v Roddick is in Murray's favour.. in fact the only time Roddick suprised him and played out of his skin was that Wimbo semi final.
Also important to note Murray was regularly beating him pre Lendl phase and before he was anywhere near his peak whereas Roddick was and should have been at the height of his powers.
Murray might have a poor serve, but one of the all time great returners, his feel and tactical awareness, the lob shots, the retrieving.. are sensational.
He is also very consistent and whilst Roddick only had Federer as a proper rival, Murray has had peak Nadal and peak Djokovic to contend with also. So he's had to climb three everests. It is no shame to be losing to these guys.
Does Murray deserve to be on all time lists, no chance. But he is definitely a better tennis player than Andy Roddick, who was a solid pro but talent wise and even output wise, doesn't match up to Murray imo.
Also important to note Murray was regularly beating him pre Lendl phase and before he was anywhere near his peak whereas Roddick was and should have been at the height of his powers.
Murray might have a poor serve, but one of the all time great returners, his feel and tactical awareness, the lob shots, the retrieving.. are sensational.
He is also very consistent and whilst Roddick only had Federer as a proper rival, Murray has had peak Nadal and peak Djokovic to contend with also. So he's had to climb three everests. It is no shame to be losing to these guys.
Does Murray deserve to be on all time lists, no chance. But he is definitely a better tennis player than Andy Roddick, who was a solid pro but talent wise and even output wise, doesn't match up to Murray imo.
The fact he has been as successful as he has with that 2nd serve is a credit to the other parts of his game.
Disagree with your comment that Fed and Rafa are over the hill too. Murray played and beat them both while they were very, very good. They are still good at the moment. Nishikori and Cilic have only competed for one slam in the past 7 years too, it is not like that is a regular thing.
Roddick h2h with Djokovic is in his favor, yet barely mentioned tho?
Federer at his peak at USO and Wimbey alone is tougher than both Nadal and Djokovic as he was always there so that three Everest's point is a bit of void mate. From 2003 till 2009 included Federer have missed only 1 final out of 14, just to put it in perspective.
He beat Roddick 4 times at Wimbey and 2 times at the USO.
Talentwise Safin and Nalbandian are both better than Murray, but if we take the whole package Murray and Roddick are pretty comparable. 2004 and 2009 I'd say Roddick beats either of Murray, Djokovic and Nadal and would've won the titles there if it wasn't for Federer.
On that day Roddick was serving 133mph on second serves. He was leading 4-2 in the third before the rain delay.
Last edited:
of course, but the serve alone is the most important shot in tennis. It's the only shot that ends the point right away without taking into consideration the other player.
2013 and 2016 were terrible years for Federer. In 2016 he participated in 4 top tier tournaments (2 MS and 2 slams). Don't think it's even debatable tbh. Same for 2013 where he missed 3 MS and didn't make it past the 4th in either Wimbey or the USO(worst results since 2002). Those are the years where Murray won the majority of his slams. 2016 you had Nadal with arguably worse year than Federer. Both combined missed a year off tour.
Murray won his slams due to being consistent and always there, fair fecks to him, but put him in 2003/2009 where Federer missed only one USO/Wimbey final, during his absolute peak and that equates to 0 slams for him.
Murray combined at slams against the top three (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) is 5 wins and 21 losses. Hardly something to boast about is it?
if anything, the fact that Murray can beat Fed and Djokovic (who was probably the best returner around) even with his wta serve says more about his overall game. Roddick just doesn't compare in that regard. he and other servebots can't really surprise players like him, even though they can be very dangerous on faster surfaces when they are in the mood. if not, they are in trouble because their one dimensional game rarely troubles great players and on the clay they look even more hopeless.
Del Potro's serve is comparable to Roddick's and his forehand is better, but Murray handles him quite well and dominates that matchup. if serve and power were everything, it wouldn't be like that, would it?
Del Potro's serve is comparable to Roddick's and his forehand is better, but Murray handles him quite well and dominates that matchup. if serve and power were everything, it wouldn't be like that, would it?
I feel like you put too much weight into the serve of a player. Does that mean Raonic > Nadal because his first serve is better? It's definitely a weakness of Murray's but the rest of his game is at a very high level. Definitely higher than that of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian etc.
I am not arguing that he is better than Federer and Djokovic and Nadal either. So I wouldn't be boasting about his record against them. The fact he has consistently dominated all those other players (not arguably the three GOATs) means he is pretty fecking good though. Without those three around he would have won many more slams for sure. I doubt Nalbandian, Safin, Roddick etc would have been as consistently good as Murray.
Of course Raonic is not better than Nadal but that's besides the point. Roddick is not Karlovic and only serve and slice. His fh was huge at the time and his movement was also top notch in his younger years. Add that to the whole package and he's pretty hard to beat. Serve plays huge part at Wimbey and USO, that's why I mention it.
Same can be said about Roddick. Roddick was pretty consistent and you can see his rankings and that usually it was Federer who ended his slam runs. He beat him 8 times during 2003-2009.
That's the thing. People shit all over Roddick as he "only" had Federer to cope with, but if Murray "only" had Federer to cope with during 2003-2009 along with pretty much peak Nadal on clay and Federer/Nadal/Safin at the AO, as well as emerging Djokovic there, how many slams would you think he'd realistically win?
I don't see how anyone who watched this match and followed their careers and reaches the conclusion that Nalbandian was a better player than Murray.
Nalbandian on his day could be a terrific player, but Murray had more to his game and peak Murray would beat Nalbandian more often than Nalbandian would beat him. Also peak Nalbandian would not have won more slams than Murray if he was playing in modern era.
Safin is truly top class talent. I would rate him higher than Murray in terms of pure tennis ability.. heck he'd probably even destroy likes of Djokovic at his very very best, he reminds me of Stan the man but with more class to his game, shame he never had the mentality and discipline to be a elite player but again that just proves that Federer did have it easy in the beginning part of his career as he wasn't up against huge competitors like Nadal and Djokovic who have mentalities which stand the test of time and trump even all time greats.
Also think you overrate serve prowess. Guys like Djokovic and Murray do not struggle v big servers, they read the serve so well that they're always in the game. You'll get the odd match where they won't but 8 times out of 10, I'd back them to beat Roddick on any surface.. although Djokovic v Roddick on grass, I'd back Roddick.
I agree with a lot of what you say on Roddick. I think he was a good player and in another era would have won Wimbledon for sure. I just don't think he was better than Murray. We'll just have to differ on this one though.
- Status