Indian Wells Masters 1000 (2016)

[the AntiPusher]

That last sentence sounds a lot like someone else currently on tour! For the record, prime Roddick would have beaten Djokovic at Wimbledon too as he was the 2nd best grass court player of his generation and you still haven't addressed the fact that if it weren't for Federer, Roddick would have multiple slams. Not exactly college level really.

Start a thread about Roddick vs (Rafa &Fed)

Rafa vs Roddick H2H
7 3 defeated Roddick on every surface

If you think Roodick wasa better Rafa on grass ask Kirean or DarthFed

 

[Kieran]

Roddick was second best player, and Fozzy Bear was third best. Gonzo was fourth best, etc.

Djoker in his prime would have handled the best of Roddick with ease, at Wimbledon. Why does this even have to be said?

 

[Kieran]

Rafa was the second best player on grass from 2003-2014. He actually won Wimbledon, twice. He beat Federer there. Roddick was never close to Rafa's best level on grass. This's is just the same old silly propaganda, to make it look as though Federer actually beat a great player to win slams early on.

He didn't...

 

[Kieran]

Am I the only person who thinks Raonic has a great chance of winning IW? His serve and mentality can lead him to victory.

He has a punchers shot at it. He's better than Isner and he's done well against Novak at times. Raonic needs a great service day, but also he's definitely a better player now than he was before...

 

[Kieran]

Btw...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235529

:cover

I loved the Highlander TV series, but it's risky making yet another film of it. They've kinda milked that calf dry by now, and she's screaming in pain.

Call me positive, optimist, desinusional, believer or whatever you want but he is going to do a good summer beginning in Miami where (it's not still summer but it's too hot already) I hope to see him biting that trophy for the first time

He won't win it, doll, but I actually think he's wiser if he skips it. He's done well in IW, shown actual signs of battle-readiness, but he needs to think the long game, and maybe skipping Miami and getting ready for clay wouldn't be a bad idea. He did that in 2013, and I think so far this year he's traveled a lot and played enough. A few days of throwing Xisca off a yacht into the bright blue sea would be a better idea, imho...

 

[Front242]

Roddick was second best player, and Fozzy Bear was third best. Gonzo was fourth best, etc.

Djoker in his prime would have handled the best of Roddick with ease, at Wimbledon. Why does this even have to be said?

That's not even the question as it's not possible for them to have both been in their prime at the same time and it was a perfect example of differing primes due to age. Prime Roddick was getting older and Djokovic was young. He was better when he was younger as the h2h shows and as injuries crept up on Roddick, his game declined. His serve wasn't as good and his forehand was a shell of what it was in his peak days. It used to be flatter and more consistent but in his last years on tour it had higher net clearance and would break down more. Same as Federer's which is nothing like it was before and Nadal's is now also less potent than before and produces more errors/shanks. Happens to them all.

Haas was pretty old in 2009 also and beat Djokovic at Halle and Wimbledon back to back so it's clear Novak wasn't in his prime then, and as I said, that wasn't the debate. My point was, in 2009 Roddick was also better on grass than Djokovic.

 

[Kieran]

Roddick was second best player, and Fozzy Bear was third best. Gonzo was fourth best, etc.

Djoker in his prime would have handled the best of Roddick with ease, at Wimbledon. Why does this even have to be said?

That's not even the question as it's not possible for them to have both been in their prime at the same time and it was a perfect example of differing primes due to age. Prime Roddick was getting older and Djokovic was young. He was better when he was younger as the h2h shows and as injuries crept up on Roddick, his game declined. His serve wasn't as good and his forehand was a shell of what it was in his peak days. It used to be flatter and more consistent but in his last years on tour it had higher net clearance and would break down more. Same as Federer's which is nothing like it was before and Nadal's is now also less potent than before and produces more errors/shanks. Happens to them all.

Haas was pretty old in 2009 also and beat Djokovic at Halle and Wimbledon back to back so it's clear Novak wasn't in his prime then, and as I said, that wasn't the debate. My point was, in 2009 Roddick was also better on grass than Djokovic.

Roddick, Haas, Chump Change. Stop comparing any of these boys with a man like Djokovic, please. At their best, they'd be mere stats on his way to yet another title...

 

[El Dude]

Rafa was the second best player on grass from 2003-2014. He actually won Wimbledon, twice. He beat Federer there. Roddick was never close to Rafa's best level on grass. This's is just the same old silly propaganda, to make it look as though Federer actually beat a great player to win slams early on.

He didn't...

I'm going to have to dispute that. Rafa hasn't made it into the second week of Wimbledon since 2011, and is 10-7 overall on grass from 2012 to the present -- that's 59%. So the span on the back-end is reduced from 2014 to 2011. I'm fairly certain that at least Novak and Murray have been better from 2012 on.

On the front end, from 2003 to 2005 his Wimbledon results were 3R, A, 2R, and his overall grass record was 3-3. So I think we have to cut off a few years at the front, too. Roddick and others were much better on grass during that span.

That leaves us with 2006-2011. Rafa won Wimbledon twice, was a finalist three times, and absent once. His overall grass record was 45-7 (87%). I think it is safe to say that he was the second greatest grass court player during that span of time.

By the way, for comparison's sake, from 2006-11 Roger won Wimbledon three times, was a finalist once, and QF twice. His overall grass record was 50-4 (93%).

 

[Kieran]

Rafa was the second best player on grass from 2003-2014. He actually won Wimbledon, twice. He beat Federer there. Roddick was never close to Rafa's best level on grass. This's is just the same old silly propaganda, to make it look as though Federer actually beat a great player to win slams early on.

He didn't...

I'm going to have to dispute that. Rafa hasn't made it into the second week of Wimbledon since 2011, and is 10-7 overall on grass from 2012 to the present -- that's 59%. So the span on the back-end is reduced from 2014 to 2011. I'm fairly certain that at least Novak and Murray have been better from 2012 on.

On the front end, from 2003 to 2005 his Wimbledon results were 3R, A, 2R, and his overall grass record was 3-3. So I think we have to cut off a few years at the front, too. Roddick and others were much better on grass during that span.

That leaves us with 2006-2011. Rafa won Wimbledon twice, was a finalist three times, and absent once. His overall grass record was 45-7 (87%). I think it is safe to say that he was the second greatest grass court player during that span of time.

By the way, for comparison's sake, from 2006-11 Roger won Wimbledon three times, was a finalist once, and QF twice. His overall grass record was 50-4 (93%).

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

 

[Front242]

Rafa was the second best player on grass from 2003-2014. He actually won Wimbledon, twice. He beat Federer there. Roddick was never close to Rafa's best level on grass. This's is just the same old silly propaganda, to make it look as though Federer actually beat a great player to win slams early on.

He didn't...

I'm going to have to dispute that. Rafa hasn't made it into the second week of Wimbledon since 2011, and is 10-7 overall on grass from 2012 to the present -- that's 59%. So the span on the back-end is reduced from 2014 to 2011. I'm fairly certain that at least Novak and Murray have been better from 2012 on.

On the front end, from 2003 to 2005 his Wimbledon results were 3R, A, 2R, and his overall grass record was 3-3. So I think we have to cut off a few years at the front, too. Roddick and others were much better on grass during that span.

That leaves us with 2006-2011. Rafa won Wimbledon twice, was a finalist three times, and absent once. His overall grass record was 45-7 (87%). I think it is safe to say that he was the second greatest grass court player during that span of time.

By the way, for comparison's sake, from 2006-11 Roger won Wimbledon three times, was a finalist once, and QF twice. His overall grass record was 50-4 (93%).

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

Rafa beat Federer at Wimbledon. Rafa did not beat peak Federer at Wimbledon. No one did. He wasn't as good in 2008 as in 2004-2007 which are the years widely regarded as his peak years. No one was beating Federer in 2004-2007 at Wimbledon and that's the standout part of why Roddick is so underrated. There's no shame losing to Federer in 2004 and 2005 at Wimbledon as no one was beating him then. That was truly peak Federer that Roddick faced. 2008 Federer at Wimbledon was still clearly very good but even a few % drop off peak level was noticeable and Rafa was able to capitalize on this. In 2009 Roddick lost 16-14 in the fifth set to Federer and was still damn good on grass up until that year, beating Murray in the semi.

There's not much separating them really but Roddick was Roger's generation anyway and I said he was the 2nd best player of Roger's generation, which he was. Roddick is almost 4 years older than Nadal so they are not the same generation.

 

[Kieran]

I'm going to have to dispute that. Rafa hasn't made it into the second week of Wimbledon since 2011, and is 10-7 overall on grass from 2012 to the present -- that's 59%. So the span on the back-end is reduced from 2014 to 2011. I'm fairly certain that at least Novak and Murray have been better from 2012 on.

On the front end, from 2003 to 2005 his Wimbledon results were 3R, A, 2R, and his overall grass record was 3-3. So I think we have to cut off a few years at the front, too. Roddick and others were much better on grass during that span.

That leaves us with 2006-2011. Rafa won Wimbledon twice, was a finalist three times, and absent once. His overall grass record was 45-7 (87%). I think it is safe to say that he was the second greatest grass court player during that span of time.

By the way, for comparison's sake, from 2006-11 Roger won Wimbledon three times, was a finalist once, and QF twice. His overall grass record was 50-4 (93%).

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

Rafa beat Federer at Wimbledon. Rafa did not beat peak Federer at Wimbledon. No one did. He wasn't as good in 2008 as in 2004-2007 which are the years widely regarded as his peak years. No one was beating Federer in 2004-2007 at Wimbledon and that's the standout part of why Roddick is so underrated. There's no shame losing to Federer in 2004 and 2005 at Wimbledon as no one was beating him then. That was truly peak Federer that Roddick faced. 2008 Federer at Wimbledon was still clearly very good but even a few % drop off peak level was noticeable and Rafa was able to capitalize on this. In 2009 Roddick lost 16-14 in the fifth set to Federer and was still damn good on grass up until that year, beating Murray in the semi.

There's not much separating them really but Roddick was Roger's generation anyway and I said he was the 2nd best player of Roger's generation, which he was. Roddick is almost 4 years older than Nadal so they are not the same generation.

That's just spin, buddy. Roger was still in his peak in 2008, but the problem for him was, so was Rafa. I used 2003-2014 because that's the period where Roger started dominating grass, and Roddick played, but actually I should have more accurately finished it in 2012, but I got the date of Andy's retirement wrong.

Roddick wasn't good enough, but I like Roddick, he had heart and he was a trier. But he wasn't a great player. Not by any comparison with truly great players, who as Mats Wilander once famously said, "find a way." I certainly wouldn't have the gall to compare Roddick with either Novak or Rafa - not even on grass...

 

[herios]

Rafa was the second best player on grass from 2003-2014. He actually won Wimbledon, twice. He beat Federer there. Roddick was never close to Rafa's best level on grass. This's is just the same old silly propaganda, to make it look as though Federer actually beat a great player to win slams early on.

He didn't...

I'm going to have to dispute that. Rafa hasn't made it into the second week of Wimbledon since 2011, and is 10-7 overall on grass from 2012 to the present -- that's 59%. So the span on the back-end is reduced from 2014 to 2011. I'm fairly certain that at least Novak and Murray have been better from 2012 on.

On the front end, from 2003 to 2005 his Wimbledon results were 3R, A, 2R, and his overall grass record was 3-3. So I think we have to cut off a few years at the front, too. Roddick and others were much better on grass during that span.

That leaves us with 2006-2011. Rafa won Wimbledon twice, was a finalist three times, and absent once. His overall grass record was 45-7 (87%). I think it is safe to say that he was the second greatest grass court player during that span of time.

By the way, for comparison's sake, from 2006-11 Roger won Wimbledon three times, was a finalist once, and QF twice. His overall grass record was 50-4 (93%).

I am not sure what Kieran smoked today, but must be really good
Rafa second best on grass during 2012-14??? :lolz:

Perhaps from the bottom. Seriously....

 

[Kieran]

I am not sure what Kieran smoked today, but must be really good
Rafa second best on grass during 2012-14??? :lolz:

Perhaps from the bottom. Seriously....

Question: who else reached 5 finals and won Wimbo twice during that period? If you can find somebody who did, come back to me. Otherwise, smoke something yourself, I don't smoke...

 

[Front242]

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

Rafa beat Federer at Wimbledon. Rafa did not beat peak Federer at Wimbledon. No one did. He wasn't as good in 2008 as in 2004-2007 which are the years widely regarded as his peak years. No one was beating Federer in 2004-2007 at Wimbledon and that's the standout part of why Roddick is so underrated. There's no shame losing to Federer in 2004 and 2005 at Wimbledon as no one was beating him then. That was truly peak Federer that Roddick faced. 2008 Federer at Wimbledon was still clearly very good but even a few % drop off peak level was noticeable and Rafa was able to capitalize on this. In 2009 Roddick lost 16-14 in the fifth set to Federer and was still damn good on grass up until that year, beating Murray in the semi.

There's not much separating them really but Roddick was Roger's generation anyway and I said he was the 2nd best player of Roger's generation, which he was. Roddick is almost 4 years older than Nadal so they are not the same generation.

That's just spin, buddy. Roger was still in his peak in 2008, but the problem for him was, so was Rafa. I used 2003-2014 because that's the period where Roger started dominating grass, and Roddick played, but actually I should have more accurately finished it in 2012, but I got the date of Andy's retirement wrong.

Roddick wasn't good enough, but I like Roddick, he had heart and he was a trier. But he wasn't a great player. Not by any comparison with truly great players, who as Mats Wilander once famously said, "find a way." I certainly wouldn't have the gall to compare Roddick with either Novak or Rafa - not even on grass...

Roddick was most definitely good enough to beat anyone except Federer on grass in his peak years though and that was my point. He took Federer to 16-14 in the 5th set. I dunno how you could honestly consider him not good enough. Ok, so he didn't beat him, but Nadal couldn't beat peak Federer either. And no matter how many times you type it, no, 2008 Federer at Wimbledon was NOT peak Federer on grass. A 5% drop off or thereabouts from peak is huge. He played an awful first 2 sets that peak Federer would never have played so badly.

Roddick should most definitely be compared to Rafa and Novak on grass. Djokovic has won 2 of his titles at Wimbledon against Federer who was aged 33 and 34 and last year's USO also against a 34 year old Federer. It was an expected result in each case. Roddick and Federer were almost the same age making things a completely level playing field in terms of peaks/age and Roddick was simply very unlucky to have met the best version of Federer on grass in 2004 and 2005, which is something Rafa and Novak never faced. They both faced a still very good Federer on grass but one that had also noticeably declined and to claim otherwise is just trying to make your favourite player look better than they in fact are when the obvious is staring you in the face. Go back and watch some clips. You realize one of Nadal's titles was also against Berdych, right? The mighty Berdych. Everything is relative.

 

[El Dude]

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

Kieran, you are technically correct, but why add those years when Rafa was essentially a non-factor for literally half of that span of time? Its like saying that Roger was the best grass court player from 1998-2016, because he won more Wimbledons than anyone else. It just seems like its padding on years to make the number look larger than it is.

The fact of the matter is that there were better grass court players than Rafa before 2006 and after 2011, so it seems more accurate to say he was second best from 2006-11, not 2003-14.

 

[Kieran]

You realize one of Nadal's titles was also against Berdych, right? The mighty Berdych. Everything is relative.

Sheesh, bro, anyone would think Federer didn't get almost all his titles against the likes of Berdych. But you're being selective in your relativity, deliberately downplaying the Federer who faced Rafa, but upgrading him when he beat Roddick, even in 2009, when according to your timeline, Roger would be then 2 years past his peak.

I like Roddick, he was good and he was game. He was never a great player. Not even on grass, a surface he enjoyed. You may say he was unlucky to face Federer then, and maybe he was (relatively speaking), but he also benefited from coming up out of a bunch of hapless makeweights. Rafa and Novak are of an utterly different calibre. Seriously, why am I having to defend this proposition? It's utterly stupid...

 

[Kieran]

So who else reached five Wimbledon finals, winning two, between 2003-2014? Only Federer has a better record than Rafa in that period, which makes Rafa the second best player for those years. Sure, he wasn't a factor at the beginning and end, and got his record over a span of 6 years, but it's still the second best player on grass for that period. Roddick never won Wimbledon, so can't possibly be considered better than Rafa, who won it twice, beating peak Federer in the process...

Kieran, you are technically correct, but why add those years when Rafa was essentially a non-factor for literally half of that span of time? Its like saying that Roger was the best grass court player from 1998-2016, because he won more Wimbledons than anyone else. It just seems like its padding on years to make the number look larger than it is.

The fact of the matter is that there were better grass court players than Rafa before 2006 and after 2011, so it seems more accurate to say he was second best from 2006-11, not 2003-14.

I changed it, brother, because for some reason I thought Roddick retired in 2014. He retired in 2012. From the period when Roger won his first Wimbledon, to the day Roddick retired, whose record is second best where it matters on grass?

Rafa. It's straight forward...

 

[Front242]

You realize one of Nadal's titles was also against Berdych, right? The mighty Berdych. Everything is relative.

Sheesh, bro, anyone would think Federer didn't get almost all his titles against the likes of Berdych. But you're being selective in your relativity, deliberately downplaying the Federer who faced Rafa, but upgrading him when he beat Roddick, even in 2009, when according to your timeline, Roger would be then 2 years past his peak.

I like Roddick, he was good and he was game. He was never a great player. Not even on grass, a surface he enjoyed. You may say he was unlucky to face Federer then, and maybe he was (relatively speaking), but he also benefited from coming up out of a bunch of hapless makeweights. Rafa and Novak are of an utterly different calibre. Seriously, why am I having to defend this proposition? It's utterly stupid...

I agree, it is indeed utterly stupid. A few posts above you said Rafa was the 2nd best on grass from 2003-2014 so I guess he faced the same hapless makeweights, eh? :cover

 

[Kieran]

You realize one of Nadal's titles was also against Berdych, right? The mighty Berdych. Everything is relative.

Sheesh, bro, anyone would think Federer didn't get almost all his titles against the likes of Berdych. But you're being selective in your relativity, deliberately downplaying the Federer who faced Rafa, but upgrading him when he beat Roddick, even in 2009, when according to your timeline, Roger would be then 2 years past his peak.

I like Roddick, he was good and he was game. He was never a great player. Not even on grass, a surface he enjoyed. You may say he was unlucky to face Federer then, and maybe he was (relatively speaking), but he also benefited from coming up out of a bunch of hapless makeweights. Rafa and Novak are of an utterly different calibre. Seriously, why am I having to defend this proposition? It's utterly stupid...

I agree, it is indeed utterly stupid. A few posts above you said Rafa was the 2nd best on grass from 2003-2014 so I guess he faced the same hapless makeweights, eh? :cover

Then you literally are unable to read... :cover

 

[Front242]

Sheesh, bro, anyone would think Federer didn't get almost all his titles against the likes of Berdych. But you're being selective in your relativity, deliberately downplaying the Federer who faced Rafa, but upgrading him when he beat Roddick, even in 2009, when according to your timeline, Roger would be then 2 years past his peak.

I like Roddick, he was good and he was game. He was never a great player. Not even on grass, a surface he enjoyed. You may say he was unlucky to face Federer then, and maybe he was (relatively speaking), but he also benefited from coming up out of a bunch of hapless makeweights. Rafa and Novak are of an utterly different calibre. Seriously, why am I having to defend this proposition? It's utterly stupid...

I agree, it is indeed utterly stupid. A few posts above you said Rafa was the 2nd best on grass from 2003-2014 so I guess he faced the same hapless makeweights, eh? :cover

Then you literally are unable to read... :cover

Rafa and Novak weren't of a different calibre at the time Roddick was at his peak and that's the whole point you're missing. Djokovic won just one slam during Roddick's prime as he was young then in 2008. You're making the common mistake of comparing a declining player to a rising one. Just look at the age difference between Nadal, Djokovic and Roddick. It's not possible without teleportation to have them all play each other during their peak periods.