Indian Wells Masters 1000 (2016)

[nehmeth]

How about from 2007-2011 Rafa was the 2nd best grass court player?

 

[Kieran]

Djokovic won just one slam during Roddick's prime as he was young then in 2008.

Hey, that's the same number as Andy won! :laydownlaughing :hug

 

[Kieran]

How about from 2007-2011 Rafa was the 2nd best grass court player?

That's true too, brother, but I used The Roddick Years because Andy was being unfairly touted as something he ain't. And I like Roddick, always did...

 

[nehmeth]

How about from 2007-2011 Rafa was the 2nd best grass court player?

That's true too, brother, but I used The Roddick Years because Andy was being unfairly touted as something he ain't. And I like Roddick, always did...

I never liked Roddick, and yes he is getting way too much credit for his grass prowess, maybe to prop up Roger's resume?

 

[Kieran]

How about from 2007-2011 Rafa was the 2nd best grass court player?

That's true too, brother, but I used The Roddick Years because Andy was being unfairly touted as something he ain't. And I like Roddick, always did...

I never liked Roddick, and yes he is getting way too much credit for his grass prowess, maybe to prop up Roger's resume?

Doh, indeed...

 

[Front242]

Djokovic won just one slam during Roddick's prime as he was young then in 2008.

Hey, that's the same number as Andy won! :laydownlaughing :hug

And in the last 2 years Djokovic has won 3 against a 33/34 year old. Is that not to be expected? Age/peaks/injuries/decline have a massive impact on sports and people who just look at the numbers miss the broader picture massively. Nadal and Djokovic only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour. Being the same age/generation as Federer, Roddick played all his peak years against absolute peak Federer. Nadal and Djokovic have been facing a still very good but not in any way peak Federer for years now.

 

[Kieran]

Djokovic won just one slam during Roddick's prime as he was young then in 2008.

Hey, that's the same number as Andy won! :laydownlaughing :hug

And in the last 2 years Djokovic has won 3 against a 33/34 year old. Is that not to be expected? Age/peaks/injuries/decline have a massive impact on sports and people who just look at the numbers miss the broader picture massively. Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour. Being the same age/generation as Federer, Roddick played all his peak years against absolute peak Federer. Nadal and Djokovic have been facing a still very good but not in any way peak Federer for years now.

And yet, when Rafa shows sign of decline, it's held against him, even though he's declining at a rate that's historically normal for a man of his stature?

"Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour."

Meditate on this for a moment, if you will. Rafa was a greenhorn, and Federer was at his peak. A child chasing a man, and still great enough to become world #2 in 2005. Where were all the great players who were Federer's rivals then, while Rafa was still learning the sport? Give credit now, buddy, to the younger man, if you ever think you should...

 

[Front242]

Hey, that's the same number as Andy won! :laydownlaughing :hug

And in the last 2 years Djokovic has won 3 against a 33/34 year old. Is that not to be expected? Age/peaks/injuries/decline have a massive impact on sports and people who just look at the numbers miss the broader picture massively. Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour. Being the same age/generation as Federer, Roddick played all his peak years against absolute peak Federer. Nadal and Djokovic have been facing a still very good but not in any way peak Federer for years now.

And yet, when Rafa shows sign of decline, it's held against him, even though he's declining at a rate that's historically normal for a man of his stature?

"Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour."

Meditate on this for a moment, if you will. Rafa was a greenhorn, and Federer was at his peak. A child chasing a man, and still great enough to become world #2 in 2005. Where were all the great players who were Federer's rivals then, while Rafa was still learning the sport? Give credit now, buddy, to the younger man, if you ever think you should...

Of course I give him credit. He won his titles against Federer fair and square. On clay he was always the better player (not sure if that's the case now :laydownlaughing sorry couldn't help myself). By 2008/2009 Federer had already started showing signs of decline but he was hardly ancient either. By the same token which great players is Novak now facing? A greatly declined Nadal, a 34 year old Federer, Murray who has beaten him about the same number of times as Nadal in the last 10 or so matches? It's no different now than it was in Federer's early days. The best had already aged/declined/retired, etc.

 

[El Dude]

You could also say the opposite, nehmeth, that some are belittling Roddick to bring down Federer a bit. Why even go there? It is just another version of "Weak Era Theory." You could also say that Roger's peers were so "weak" because Roger was so good. No other player in the Open Era has as utterly dominated his peers as Roger, with the lone exception of Bjorn Borg.

Anyhow, I agree with the idea that Andy Roddick is a bit historically underrated, and it is because won only one Slam. He also appeared in five Slam finals overall, and as far as my statistical research has shown, is more equivalent to a 2-3 Slam winner than a one Slam winner in terms of overall record and performance. In fact, he very well could be the greatest one Slam winner in the Open Era. I mean, who was better? Vitas Gerulaitis? He isn't far off and was probably more talented, but he was inconsistent. Michael Chang? Goran Ivanisevic? Thomas Muster, maybe?

He's also close to, as good or even better than plenty of two-Slam winners: Sergi Bruguera, Stan Wawrinka, Patrick Rafter, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marat Safin, Stan Smith, and probably better than at least one three-Slam winner, Jan Kodes.

Andy was also a pretty damn good grass player. Career on grass: 86-22 (80%), career at Wimbledon 41-12 (77%). Roddick's best years at Wimbledon were 2003-09, when he was 30-7 (81%) with three finals, one SF, and one QF. Overall he was 60-10 (86%) on grass during those years.

Now let's look at Rafa. 58-17 (77%) career on grass, and 40-9 (82%) at Wimbledon, with 2 wins, three finals, and the rest first round exits. If we're looking at Roddick's best years on grass (2003-09), Rafa was 31-7 on grass (82%) and 22-4 at Wimbledon (85%). So he was a bit better, but not by a huge margin. If Andy had beaten Roger in 2009, we'd probably be saying they were similar.

 

[nehmeth]

You could also say the opposite, nehmeth, that some are belittling Roddick to bring down Federer a bit. Why even go there?

You can say anything you like E.D. It isn't the first time someone talks up one player to boost his guy's stature. I would venture that everyone has done it at one time or another. I don't think that's a sin.

Andy made five finals and still has one slam. Novak got to a lot of slam finals too and his winning percentage was below 500 for a while. He turned it around. Andy didn't. He's one of the greats and Andy was a limited talent that made the most of what he had. I'm not belittling the guy, those are the facts.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Hey, that's the same number as Andy won! :laydownlaughing :hug

And in the last 2 years Djokovic has won 3 against a 33/34 year old. Is that not to be expected? Age/peaks/injuries/decline have a massive impact on sports and people who just look at the numbers miss the broader picture massively. Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour. Being the same age/generation as Federer, Roddick played all his peak years against absolute peak Federer. Nadal and Djokovic have been facing a still very good but not in any way peak Federer for years now.

And yet, when Rafa shows sign of decline, it's held against him, even though he's declining at a rate that's historically normal for a man of his stature?

"Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour."

Meditate on this for a moment, if you will. Rafa was a greenhorn, and Federer was at his peak. A child chasing a man, and still great enough to become world #2 in 2005. Where were all the great players who were Federer's rivals then, while Rafa was still learning the sport? Give credit now, buddy, to the younger man, if you ever think you should...

Kieran, do you realize that if you tried for months, you couldnt find two humans on this Earth that feel that Roddick was a better grass court player than Rafa besides Front and his co signing Fiero..those two see tennis ONE way, their way.. I can respect thier opinions because they are consistent although if they could speak with Roger face to face he may :laydownlaughing

 

[Carol]

And in the last 2 years Djokovic has won 3 against a 33/34 year old. Is that not to be expected? Age/peaks/injuries/decline have a massive impact on sports and people who just look at the numbers miss the broader picture massively. Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour. Being the same age/generation as Federer, Roddick played all his peak years against absolute peak Federer. Nadal and Djokovic have been facing a still very good but not in any way peak Federer for years now.

And yet, when Rafa shows sign of decline, it's held against him, even though he's declining at a rate that's historically normal for a man of his stature?

"Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour.

Meditate on this for a moment, if you will. Rafa was a greenhorn, and Federer was at his peak. A child chasing a man, and still great enough to become world #2 in 2005. Where were all the great players who were Federer's rivals then, while Rafa was still learning the sport? Give credit now, buddy, to the younger man, if you ever think you should...

Of course I give him credit. He won his titles against Federer fair and square. On clay he was always the better player (not sure if that's the case now :laydownlaughing sorry couldn't help myself). By
2008/2009 Federer had already started showing signs of decline but he was hardly ancient either. By the same token which great players is Novak now facing? A greatly declined Nadal, a 34 year old Federer, Murray who has beaten him about the same number of times as Nadal in the last 10 or so matches? It's no different now than it was in Federer's early days. The best had already aged/declined/retired, etc.

If Federer with 26 years old (2008) was already started showing signs of decline then today is Methuselah but he is still #2 (but not for longer) which means in what weak conditions the tennis is at
the present. I've always considered him like a "lucky guy" before 2008 and after 2014 :s

 

[El Dude]

You could also say the opposite, nehmeth, that some are belittling Roddick to bring down Federer a bit. Why even go there?

You can say anything you like E.D. It isn't the first time someone talks up one player to boost his guy's stature. I would venture that everyone has done it at one time or another. I don't think that's a sin.

Andy made five finals and still has one slam. Novak got to a lot of slam finals too and his winning percentage was below 500 for a while. He turned it around. Andy didn't. He's one of the greats and Andy was a limited talent that made the most of what he had. I'm not belittling the guy, those are the facts.

Wait, why are we comparing Roddick and Novak? They're two completely different levels of players. I don't think anyone would dispute that Novak isn't far greater than Roddick ever was.

I also don't think the bold quote really describes Roddick all that well. David Ferrer, maybe, or Juan Carlos Ferrero. Roddick also wasn't like Safin or Nalbandian, who were very talented players whose records don't quite accurately reflect how talented they were. He's somewhere in-between the two. But he's also in the category of players who would have won more Slams if he had played at a different time. Actually, the gap between him and, say, Jim Courier is smaller than the gap between him and most one-Slam players. To me he really stands out as similar to 2 Slam winners, just as Andy Murray is more in the category of 3-4 Slam winners.

Actually, there's a similarity between Andys Roddick and Murray, in that both played alongside players who were better than them in almost every way (Federer and Djokovic, respectively).

 

[Front242]

And yet, when Rafa shows sign of decline, it's held against him, even though he's declining at a rate that's historically normal for a man of his stature?

"Nadal only had to contend with peak Federer for a few years when they first came on tour.

Meditate on this for a moment, if you will. Rafa was a greenhorn, and Federer was at his peak. A child chasing a man, and still great enough to become world #2 in 2005. Where were all the great players who were Federer's rivals then, while Rafa was still learning the sport? Give credit now, buddy, to the younger man, if you ever think you should...

Of course I give him credit. He won his titles against Federer fair and square. On clay he was always the better player (not sure if that's the case now :laydownlaughing sorry couldn't help myself). By
2008/2009 Federer had already started showing signs of decline but he was hardly ancient either. By the same token which great players is Novak now facing? A greatly declined Nadal, a 34 year old Federer, Murray who has beaten him about the same number of times as Nadal in the last 10 or so matches? It's no different now than it was in Federer's early days. The best had already aged/declined/retired, etc.

If Federer with 26 years old (2008) was already started showing signs of decline then today is Methuselah but he is still #2 (but not for longer) which means in what weak conditions the tennis is at
the present. I've always considered him like a "lucky guy" before 2008 and after 2014 :s

Actually Murray is the one who is number 2 for now but (quite possibly) not for long as you put it. You make your own luck and he was never lucky. Why exactly is Federer lucky since 2014? Lucky to have not won a slam since 2012? Lucky to have been good enough to beat everyone along the way to 3 slam finals in 2 years and lose to the same guy simply cos he was 33/34? Interesting use of the word lucky. Lucky for you and Nadal only 'cos he didn't win any of them I guess. Btw, Hewitt was a shell of himself after around age 23 so yes, everyone's peak is different. Borg retired at 25...

And btw, Federer never used Meth :snicker and was therefore never a Meth-use-ah

 

[nehmeth]

You could also say the opposite, nehmeth, that some are belittling Roddick to bring down Federer a bit. Why even go there?

You can say anything you like E.D. It isn't the first time someone talks up one player to boost his guy's stature. I would venture that everyone has done it at one time or another. I don't think that's a sin.

Andy made five finals and still has one slam. Novak got to a lot of slam finals too and his winning percentage was below 500 for a while. He turned it around. Andy didn't. He's one of the greats and Andy was a limited talent that made the most of what he had. I'm not belittling the guy, those are the facts.

Wait, why are we comparing Roddick and Novak? They're two completely different levels of players. I don't think anyone would dispute that Novak isn't far greater than Roddick ever was.

You gave Roddick a huge upgrade for reaching 5 slam finals, if you remember. Novak at one point also had a subpar percentage in finals, but turned it around. I only compared them on that. I feel you give Andy more cred than he deserves, you feel I give him less. We differ. Nothing new.

 

[Carol]

Of course I give him credit. He won his titles against Federer fair and square. On clay he was always the better player (not sure if that's the case now :laydownlaughing sorry couldn't help myself). By
2008/2009 Federer had already started showing signs of decline but he was hardly ancient either. By the same token which great players is Novak now facing? A greatly declined Nadal, a 34 year old Federer, Murray who has beaten him about the same number of times as Nadal in the last 10 or so matches? It's no different now than it was in Federer's early days. The best had already aged/declined/retired, etc.

If Federer with 26 years old (2008) was already started showing signs of decline then today is Methuselah but he is still #2 (but not for longer) which means in what weak conditions the tennis is at
the present. I've always considered him like a "lucky guy" before 2008 and after 2014 :s

Actually Murray is the one who is number 2 for now but (quite possibly) not for long as you put it. You make your own luck and he was never lucky. Why exactly is Federer lucky since 2014? Lucky to have not won a slam since 2012? Lucky to have been good enough to beat everyone along the way to 3 slam finals in 2 years and lose to the same guy simply cos he was 33/34? Interesting use of the word lucky. Lucky for you and Nadal only 'cos he didn't win any of them I guess. Btw, Hewitt was a shell of himself after around age 23 so yes, everyone's peak is different. Borg retired at 25...

And btw, Federer never used Meth :snicker and was therefore never a Meth-use-ah

You are right, Muzz is now #2 and though is my second fav player I don't think that number is going to last too long
Well, these last two years we could say (as one friend of mine and very good tennis follower says) the problem is not how Novak is playing but how the others players are playing which is correct. Federer reached the #2 thanks to the "decline" (favorite word of his fans :snicker) of Nadal, the inconsistency of Muzz and what we can say about Berdych, Tsonga, Monfils etc etc and the still not too good results of the younger ones. Yep, Roger is definitely a lucky guy

 

[Front242]

Federer is simply a better player than Murray even at nearly 35. That's not luck. Nadal not being good enough to do anything at Wimbledon is nothing new and nothing to do with decline as he's always struggled in the early rounds of Wimbledon. Nothing to do with luck for Federer there. Federer isn't gonna win RG at age 34 so Nadal's decline means nothing there. It'd take Djokovic to beat Nadal and then someone else to beat Djokovic 'cos eventhough Federer was still well past his prime when he beat Djokovic there in 2011, there's no chance of it happening in 2016. The surface is too physical for a guy Roger's age to win.

The AO surface was always gonna be hard for Federer to beat Djokovic even if their primes coincided 'cos Djokovic is more proficient on slow/medium hard courts. So again no luck there. How is he lucky he has to face a guy who he won't beat at the age of nearly 35? He has somewhat of a chance at Wimbledon and the USO if a few things went his way like fantastic serving and forehand and capitalizing on break point opportunities but for that to happen would not take luck. It would take immense concentration/focus and belief and he has a bit of a mental block against Novak in the last 3 finals 'cos he plays great till the final and then saves his worst match of the tournament for the final. Again, if that's your idea of luck, then sure, he's a lucky guy. Most though would say he's $h1t out of luck.

 

[Carol]

Federer is simply a better player than Murray even at nearly 35. That's not luck. Nadal not being good enough to do anything at Wimbledon is nothing new and nothing to do with decline as he's always struggled in the early rounds of Wimbledon. Nothing to do with luck for Federer there. Federer isn't gonna win RG at age 34 so Nadal's decline means nothing there. It'd take Djokovic to beat Nadal and then someone else to beat Djokovic 'cos eventhough Federer was still well past his prime when he beat Djokovic there in 2011, there's no chance of it happening in 2016. The surface is too physical for a guy Roger's age to win.

The AO surface was always gonna be hard for Federer to beat Djokovic even if their primes coincided 'cos Djokovic is more proficient on slow/medium hard courts. So again no luck there. How is he lucky he has to face a guy who he won't beat at the age of nearly 35? He has somewhat of a chance at Wimbledon and the USO if a few things went his way like fantastic serving and forehand and capitalizing on break point opportunities but for that to happen would not take luck. It would take immense concentration/focus and belief and he has a bit of a mental block against Novak in the last 3 finals 'cos he plays great till the final and then saves his worst match of the tournament for the final. Again, if that's your idea of luck, then sure, he's a lucky guy. Most though would say he's $h1t out of luck.

After to win twice Wimbledon it could be the probability to win the third, everything can happen in this sport as you can see

 

[Front242]

There's a rumour that Andy Roddick is gonna come back just to 140mph+ ace him off the court in the first round

 

[the AntiPusher]

There's a rumour that Andy Roddick is gonna come back just to 140mph+ ace him off the court in the first round

Rumor has it that Andy Still wakes up in the middle of the night in hot cold sweats still bothered by loosing that final in 5 sets to Roger. Well.. aleast he has B Decker to calm him down and back to sleep.