Some records that could be broken in 2017

[Front242]

Roddick would clearly have won multiple Wimbledons if not for Federer.

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

Big serve and forehand? Check. Are these components that would win slams on grass? Affirmative.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roddick would clearly have won multiple Wimbledons if not for Federer.

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

Big serve and forehand? Check. Are these components that would win slams on grass? Affirmative.

I said he had a occasionally forehand..not a consistent forehand like Roger, Gonzo or Rafa.. Roddick was an absolute brick mason at the net..his approach shot was pedestrian at best..I would bet if you asked Roger his thoughts about his all time greatest pigeon it would be something that supports your argument..

Again..it's my opinion.I think there are others on this board that liked his game.. I not one of those guys(ladies not to be excluded)

 

[Fiero425]

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

Big serve and forehand? Check. Are these components that would win slams on grass? Affirmative.

I said he had a occasionally forehand..not a consistent forehand like Roger, Gonzo or Rafa.. Roddick was an absolute brick mason at the net..his approach shot was pedestrian at best..I would bet if you asked Roger his thoughts about his all time greatest pigeon it would be something that supports your argument..

Again..it's my opinion.I think there are others on this board that liked his game.. I not one of those guys(ladies not to be excluded)

Roddick was a throwback to the 70's & 80's when young punks got away with a big serve, adequate forehand, and a garbage slice backhand approach! Been there, seen it, and taught the same! He needed something else to get him to a status above a Doctor Ivo! The level of play truly had to be draggin' to allow Andy to take over the #1 ranking even for a few weeks! He needs choppy grass, old carpet, and fast HC to make a mark these days! :nono :angel:

 

[El Dude]

Thank you MJT, another welcome post. Mind you, the Fedal wars are boring at first, but you soon develop a taste for them and get into longterm battle strategies, develop a system for taking notes, and generally lay awake at night waiting for the enemy to slip up (which they always do), and actually you develop quite a taste for them. :snicker

Funny, and kinda true.

I never bought the idea that Fed's generation were so good, but he was just so much better. Remember, Rafa was a clay-court player back in 2004, and within a year - while not being a factor at any slam off clay - he became Federer's only rival. He turned 19 in mid-2005. So all of Federer's generation were not only being beaten by Fedferer at his peak - but a semi-developed greenhorn was scooping up the rest of the prizes, and there were winning basically nothing.

Does it have to be either/or? Either it was a weak era or a strong era but dominated by Roger (and later, Rafa)? I see it as neither weak nor strong, but somewhere in the middle. But I think it is also true that Roger essentially suppressed his entire generation because he so dominated them.

And I never bought Roddick as a 5-6 times slam winner, either. As Mats once said, great players find a way. With Roddick, I loved him, and he was brilliant in a couple of Wimbledon matches against Federer, but he was also an example of a player who found a way...to lose. He wasn't a great player, but he'd have to be if he was to win 5-6 slams against any opposition, even if Federer was absent...

Well, he wasn't a 5-6 Slam winner, so there's nothing to buy into. And I agree that great players find a way, and that Roddick fell short and wasn't a great player. But I do think he is one of the greatest single Slam winners of the Open Era, and better than some players who won 2-3 Slams.

As I said, I did a study--can't remember if I posted here--where I looked at every single loss to Federer at a Slam, and by replacing them with who Roger beat, then looking at that player's h2h with Roddick, and even being conservative about it, came up with 5-7 Slam titles. I'd recommend that you look at the actual Slams rather than just say, "he isn't a 5-6 Slam winner" - because if you look at the actual players he would have faced, he would have won most of those matches and won at least a few more Slams than he did.

I did the study not to prove that Andy R was a great player, but that he was possibly the player most negatively impacted by another player in the Open Era. Would he have won 6+ Slams if Roger hadn't played? Probably not, but I think he would have won 4-5. And of course without Roger, his generation would have been relatively weak - probably more comparable to the 74-78 group.

 

[Front242]

Dude.. I know you are not American but Andy's tennis talents are not held in the same legendary status as a Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Courier. Those players had all the strokes whereas Andy had the big serve that was predictable and an occasional big forehand if his opponent's hit it short..Well that's my opinion.

Big serve and forehand? Check. Are these components that would win slams on grass? Affirmative.

I said he had a occasionally forehand..not a consistent forehand like Roger, Gonzo or Rafa.. Roddick was an absolute brick mason at the net..his approach shot was pedestrian at best..I would bet if you asked Roger his thoughts about his all time greatest pigeon it would be something that supports your argument..

Again..it's my opinion.I think there are others on this board that liked his game.. I not one of those guys(ladies not to be excluded)

It's not so much a case of whether or not people liked him, really. He was truly excellent on grass and beat Murray at Wimbledon 2009 and Murray was very good on grass even back then. No shame in losing to Federer on grass and imo Roddick would've beaten all the guys Federer beat to reach the final. Federer beat Grosjean in 2004 to reach the Wimbledon final. Roddick only lost to Grosjean once and that was on clay. Federer beat Hewitt to reach the 2005 Wimbledon final and Roddick won all the matches he played against Hewitt on grass. Federer beat Haas in 2009 to reach the Wimbledon final. Haas and Roddick amazingly never played on grass but the h2h was 7-6 to Haas. Could've gone either way. 2006 US Open, Federer beat Davydenko to reach the final. Davydenko and Roddick never played on grass but Roddick had a 5-1 h2h so I'm going with Roddick as the would be winner there.

That's 3 he'd have won and possibly 4 if he'd beaten Haas hypothetically. That's only taking the finals into account. Federer beat Roddick in slam semis also. Roddick is clearly underrated and would've won at least 3 slams going by the above, possibly 4 and maybe more if we factor in the semis losses to Federer. Clearly Roger denied him having a much better career and it's unfair to downgrade him based on that.

Edited to include semis. Wimbledon 2003, Roddick lost to Federer who beat Philippoussis. Roddick played Philippoussis once in 2005 (on grass) and won. I'm going with him winning another slam potentially here.

Australian Open 2007, Roddick lost to Federer in the semis. His opponent if not Federer would have been Fernando Gonzalez who Roddick had a 9-3 h2h against and never lost to him on grass. I'm going with Roddick winning another slam there. Didn't include AO 2009 'cos I doubt Roddick would have beaten Nadal, but you never know. Roddick won 3 of their hard court encounters.

Taking the semis into account, that's pretty clearly 5 slams actually that Roddick would have potentially won, 2 Wimbledon finals (2004, 2005) and most likely the 2003 Wimbledon if he'd played Philippoussis. 2009 against Haas is a 50/50. That's 3 slams already though. 4 if you include 2006 USO and 5 with AO 2007. I'm going with 5 and saying 60/40 Nadal would've beaten him at the AO 2009. But again, you never know. Roddick beat Nadal at the 2010 Miami Masters which is a similar court speed.

So 5 slams it is, maybe 6. But not less than 5 if we include semis.

 

[Kieran]

As I said, I did a study--can't remember if I posted here--where I looked at every single loss to Federer at a Slam, and by replacing them with who Roger beat, then looking at that player's h2h with Roddick, and even being conservative about it, came up with 5-7 Slam titles. I'd recommend that you look at the actual Slams rather than just say, "he isn't a 5-6 Slam winner" - because if you look at the actual players he would have faced, he would have won most of those matches and won at least a few more Slams than he did.

I'm familiar with this line of thinking - and I remember you posted it, I think - though isn't it predicated upon a helluva lot of "ifs?" And I appreciate we all do this, so I'm certainly not attacking you for it, nor am I saying that you strictly speaking stand by it as a scientifically proven theory. No, I understand that you're honestly trying to locate Roddick somewhere and see if he can be better accepted as being a player whose results don't necessarily tell us how good he was.

But, to look at your first example, if we look at who Federer beat to reach a slam final with Andy, but then imagine Roger was instead beaten by one of them, then we look at Roddick's H2H with his final opponent, he had a winning record, so presumably he might win that slam? But this makes me wonder who Federer's opponents were in these majors, and what his H2H was against them (presumably a lot better than Andy's) and I ask myself, if the H2H didn't matter against Roger - who they beat on the way to a final with Andy - why should it then favour Andy in the final?

But even more, look at Murray this year at Oz: soon as Novak was out, he wobbled. It's my belief he wobbled because Novak was knocked out. There's no guessing how Roddick might have handled the pressure of suddenly becoming favourite because of Roger's exit.

My own feelings with Roddick are that he was a good player - though not a great one - and his limitations stopped him from ever being a great one, even if Roger was absent. Would he have won more slams? It's a Bizarro world, but I'm sure he might have. But he wasn't a great player, and nor was he a great opponent for Roger, as the results between them show. Rafa, who was still young and in development, became Roger's only rival when he was 19, and Rafa wasn't even a factor on Roger's - or Roddick's - best surfaces then....

 

[El Dude]

All of which I agree with, Kieran. It isn't about knowing for absolutely certain - just looking at probabilities, and Front's findings match up with my own. In fact, stay tuned for a blog article about this...

But yeah, Andy wasn't a great player. He wasn't even a lesser or "near-great" like Murray, Courier and Vilas. But he was in the next tier down, I think - among the better one-Slam winners, and as good as some of the multi-Slam winners.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

But, to look at your first example, if we look at who Federer beat to reach a slam final with Andy, but then imagine Roger was instead beaten by one of them, then we look at Roddick's H2H with his final opponent, he had a winning record, so presumably he might win that slam? But this makes me wonder who Federer's opponents were in these majors, and what his H2H was against them (presumably a lot better than Andy's) and I ask myself, if the H2H didn't matter against Roger - who they beat on the way to a final with Andy - why should it then favour Andy in the final?

I think you misunderstand the thought experiment. I don't think it is "what if Roger had been beaten", but rather "what if Roger hadn't been there"?

But even more, look at Murray this year at Oz: soon as Novak was out, he wobbled. It's my belief he wobbled because Novak was knocked out. There's no guessing how Roddick might have handled the pressure of suddenly becoming favourite because of Roger's exit.

Of course, too many unknowns to make any real predictions, that's why it's called "speculation". How would Andy have dealt with being a favourite? Could you argue that Roger made him improve his game, and he might not have done so without him? Impossible to answer, but we can use the data that we *do* have, and try to simulate what might have happened if Fed wasn't there.

My own feelings with Roddick are that he was a good player - though not a great one - and his limitations stopped him from ever being a great one, even if Roger was absent. Would he have won more slams? It's a Bizarro world, but I'm sure he might have. But he wasn't a great player, and nor was he a great opponent for Roger, as the results between them show. Rafa, who was still young and in development, became Roger's only rival when he was 19, and Rafa wasn't even a factor on Roger's - or Roddick's - best surfaces then....

Yeah, but Rafa was special because 1. he was physically mature and able to compete with the best amazingly early, 2. his game was tailor-made to cause Roger trouble, and 3. he was virtually unbeatable on clay.

In particular, when you say that he became "Roger's only rival", I am not sure that this is true (at that stage) when you discount clay. I guess this is more true once you get to 2006/2007, when Rafa was only 20/21. But again, I don't think you can compare Rafa with any other player of recent years when it comes to physical (and mental!) maturity at an early age.

 

[masterclass]

If Roger gains the #1 ranking sometime during 2017, he would be the oldest #1 by far in the Open Era. Agassi holds the record with his last week at #1 at 33y 4m 3d. Federer is currently second at 31y 2m 21 days.

Ivan Lendl is the Open Era's oldest Year End #1 at 29y 9m 24 days.

Novak Djokovic already stopped Federer from breaking Lendl's record twice. In 2012, Novak overtook Federer just before the WTF (Nov 5), and in 2014, Federer could not quite catch Novak by the end of the year in the World Tour Finals/Davis Cup, where he had a mathematical chance.

Rod Laver is the only man to win more than 1 major in a season at 30+ in 1969. That year he won the Grand Slam (first 3 at age 30, and the US Open when he turned 31 that year). So IF Roger wins another major this year, he would be the oldest player in the Open Era to win 2 or more majors during one calendar year by far.

There are probably many other records to achieve this year if we dig deeply enough for them.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Front242]

No doubt he'd be the oldest player to win the WTF also if he manages to do so.