Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[El Dude]

See El Dude this is where you and I usually part ways.. "reading comprehension". Is that necessary.....my point is Roddick name shouldn't be mentioned..Do you think Roddick had a better career then Safin or Yeveny K?

Sorry for the snipe. It is just frustrating when someone mis-interprets something, then goes about attacking something that wasn't actually said.

I disagree with your point, that Roddick shouldn't be mentioned in the context that I mentioned it: a player's overall record being severely lessened by one or more of the Big Three. I mean, do you disagree that he would have won more Slams if not for Roger? Again, look at the players defeated by Roger before facing Roddick in Slam finals and semifinals and tell me that Roddick wouldn't have won several of those matches.

As for comparing him to Safin and Kafelnikov, that's kind of out of left field. I think the three are all in a similar category of players: 1-2 Slam winners, #1s, regulars in the top 5-10, etc, but each has their own unique qualities. Safin was a more talented player, and in a way "should" have been the dominant player of the early 00s, or at least second fiddle to Roger and eventually Rafa. But while Roger dominated him overall (9-2), Safin's biggest problem was himself. I don't really have an opinion on Kafelnikov as I didn't watch a lot of tennis in his era. One thing that strikes me about his record is that while he has 2 Slams, he has no Masters or WTF.

 

[El Dude]

Roddick reminded me of the boy phenoms of my era with a serve, big FH, and not much else; ex. Krickstein and Arias come to mind!

Yet he still managed to win a Slam, reach #1, win 5 Masters and 32 titles overall.

By the way, Krickstein and Arias (and other "boy phenoms") figure into my next installment of my multi-part study. There were a ton of those guys in the 80s.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Sorry for the snipe. It is just frustrating when someone mis-interprets something, then goes about attacking something that wasn't actually said.

I disagree with your point, that Roddick shouldn't be mentioned in the context that I mentioned it: a player's overall record being severely lessened by one or more of the Big Three. I mean, do you disagree that he would have won more Slams if not for Roger? Again, look at the players defeated by Roger before facing Roddick in Slam finals and semifinals and tell me that Roddick wouldn't have won several of those matches.

As for comparing him to Safin and Kafelnikov, that's kind of out of left field. I think the three are all in a similar category of players: 1-2 Slam winners, #1s, regulars in the top 5-10, etc, but each has their own unique qualities. Safin was a more talented player, and in a way "should" have been the dominant player of the early 00s, or at least second fiddle to Roger and eventually Rafa. But while Roger dominated him overall (9-2), Safin's biggest problem was himself. I don't really have an opinion on Kafelnikov as I didn't watch a lot of tennis in his era. One thing that strikes me about his record is that while he has 2 Slams, he has no Masters or WTF.

I CAN'T believe you are really talking about What if in regards to Andy Roddick chances to capture slams..As usual, you are incapable of admitting that you are incorrect.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Hardly! Safin "worked" both Sampras & Federer in Majors while Roddick barely got a sniff! Kafelnikov won 2 Majors & OG in 2000.!

Good points Fiero!

 

[El Dude]

I CAN'T believe you are really talking about What if in regards to Andy Roddick chances to capture slams..As usual, you are incapable of admitting that you are incorrect.

Congratulations, you've entered troll territory. This is just silly (as usual). What am I 'wrong" about? What is "wrong" about subjective opinion? And you still haven't addressed my actual question, which is this:

Roddick was 0-8 vs Federer at Slams, including 4 F, 3 SF, and 1 QF. Would Roddick have lost all 8 of those, including 4 Slam finals, if he faced other opponents?

What you are saying I am "wrong" about is my belief that Roddick's Slam count and career accomplishments were severely hurt by having to play alongside Roger, in a manner similar to how Murray's career numbers were hurt by playing alongside the Big Three. I am simply saying that if Roger hadn't existed, Roddick would have had more Slams. How is that "wrong?"

I would suggest actually considering this, rather than just knee-jerk reaction, perhaps because I"m the one saying it and/or you don't like Roddick. For instance:

Just take the Finals alone. Roddick would have faced (with his H2H vs them): Grosjean (8-1), Hewitt (7-7), Davydenko (5-1), and Haas (6-7).

Are you saying that Roddick would have gone 0-4 against players that he was 26-16 against? Chances are, just based on H2H, he would have beaten Grosjean and Davydenko, and one of Hewitt/Haas. That's 3 more Slams.

Then there are 4 more losses to consider, which I won't go into. Without going into details, let's be conservative and assume he wins just 1 of those.

So that gives us 5 Slams for Roddick, if Federer weren't on tour. I'm not saying he definitely would have won 5 Slams, but that it is reasonable to suggest that he could have. He certainly would have won more than 1, and at least 3-4.

What am I "wrong" about, again? Oh yeah, a well-supported opinion.

 

[tented]

I CAN'T believe you are really talking about What if in regards to Andy Roddick chances to capture slams..As usual, you are incapable of admitting that you are incorrect.

It’s not unrealistic to think Roddick would have won more if Roger hadn’t been there. I mean, Andy lost 4 major finals to Roger, which means Roddick was playing well enough to get to those finals. No, it’s not a given he would have won all of them against someone else, but even if he won two out of four, it would still raise his count from one to three majors.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It’s not unrealistic to think Roddick would have won more if Roger hadn’t been there. I mean, Andy lost 4 major finals to Roger, which means Roddick was playing well enough to get to those finals. No, it’s not a given he would have won all of them against someone else, but even if he won two out of four, it would still raise his count from one to three majors.

Your thoughts

Andy Roddick VS Roger Federer | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

 

[the AntiPusher]

Congratulations, you've entered troll territory. This is just silly (as usual). What am I 'wrong" about? What is "wrong" about subjective opinion? And you still haven't addressed my actual question, which is this:

Roddick was 0-8 vs Federer at Slams, including 4 F, 3 SF, and 1 QF. Would Roddick have lost all 8 of those, including 4 Slam finals, if he faced other opponents?

What you are saying I am "wrong" about is my belief that Roddick's Slam count and career accomplishments were severely hurt by having to play alongside Roger, in a manner similar to how Murray's career numbers were hurt by playing alongside the Big Three. I am simply saying that if Roger hadn't existed, Roddick would have had more Slams. How is that "wrong?"

I would suggest actually considering this, rather than just knee-jerk reaction, perhaps because I"m the one saying it and/or you don't like Roddick. For instance:

Just take the Finals alone. Roddick would have faced (with his H2H vs them): Grosjean (8-1), Hewitt (7-7), Davydenko (5-1), and Haas (6-7).

Are you saying that Roddick would have gone 0-4 against players that he was 26-16 against? Chances are, just based on H2H, he would have beaten Grosjean and Davydenko, and one of Hewitt/Haas. That's 3 more Slams.

Then there are 4 more losses to consider, which I won't go into. Without going into details, let's be conservative and assume he wins just 1 of those.

So that gives us 5 Slams for Roddick, if Federer weren't on tour. I'm not saying he definitely would have won 5 Slams, but that it is reasonable to suggest that he could have. He certainly would have won more than 1, and at least 3-4.


What am I "wrong" about, again? Oh yeah, a well-supported opinion.

I'm not going to give any power to your entire post.

Andy Roddick VS Roger Federer | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

 

[El Dude]

Cool, so you've come around and are supporting my point.

 

[don_fabio]

Roddick, despite all his limits was a very strong player for a period of time and worth more than one slam. He made the best of his abilities and deserves absolute respect. I remember his serve was a weapon many of todays players can only dream about and wished they had. Let's also not forget unfortunate Wimbledon F against Roger when he was supposed to go 2 sets up. No matter how strong Fed was on grass, at that time watching that match I just had a feeling he had Fed on ropes, just couldn't execute and finish off that set. That is maybe his biggest career regret.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roddick, despite all his limits was a very strong player for a period of time and worth more than one slam. He made the best of his abilities and deserves absolute respect. I remember his serve was a weapon many of todays players can only dream about and wished they had. Let's also not forget unfortunate Wimbledon F against Roger when he was supposed to go 2 sets up. No matter how strong Fed was on grass, at that time watching that match I just had a feeling he had Fed on ropes, just couldn't execute and finish off that set. That is maybe his biggest career regret.

Federer's level of being worried about Roddick is the same as an elephant concerned about a fly on it's ass. Granted Andy played the match of his life but it was no where the struggle that he (Roger) faced recently at SW19 finals vs Novak's ground strokes or the finals vs Nadal. IMO..

The only reason this is a topic because of the under cover Nadal troll El Dude. Yes, I am saying that El Dude has been trolling Nadal for over a decade with his version of bias analysis .

 

[monfed]

Please tell me what it was, because it was pretty garbled in there. Are we talking about the same Federer who had 2 championship points and lost his #21? I'm in no way hating on Roger...I'm just trying to figure out how you've come to that specific conclusion. If I read that mess right.

Yes Fred took a proverbial dump on CC against Joe but he wouldn't have done that against a less experienced slam virgin like Med in a CYGS match.

 

[tented]

Your thoughts

Andy Roddick VS Roger Federer | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

Roddick’s head to head with Roger is not the point. We all know he had a terrible record against Federer. The point is how Roddick would have done at majors if Roger had NOT been there.

 

[Kieran]

Roddick’s head to head with Roger is not the point. We all know he had a terrible record against Federer. The point is how Roddick would have done at majors if Roger had NOT been there.

Exactly, and obviously the numbers state that in this hypothetical, Roddick worries make gains. Probably significant gains but definitely some gains…

 

[El Dude]

The only reason this is a topic because of the under cover Nadal troll El Dude. Yes, I am saying that El Dude has been trolling Nadal for over a decade with his version of bias analysis .

You got me. Finally someone figured it out. Everything I write is a sneaky swipe at Rafa.

 

[Jelenafan]

Of course as a Patriot fan I reserve the right to state that if wasn't for the fluky lucky NY Giants the PATS would have 8 SuperBowl titles today. ; )

All kidding aside, Isn’t the whole point of winning a Major that you’re the last player standing? It's how you play against all your contemporaries, not 99 % of them. If you eliminate the player that beat you in the final, it’s almost trying to give them the Major without the pressure of winning that last Matchpoint . ; )

Roddick wasn’t good enough to win another Major when he was playing, PERIOD. He was all of, what, 21 when he won the USO? That wasn't enough of a breakthrough to allow him to be the last person standing ever again. (Even then, Nalbandian had MP in the SF's and IF he would have converted that last shot, would he have been able to be the USO champ and get that one elusive Major) As to The whole "he was better than just winning 1 Major".... Well that slippery slope goes both ways.... Connors would have won 5 or 6 more Majors if Borg wasn't around, Rafa could have won 30 Majors if Federer and Djokovic weren't around, Federer also would have won at least 30 also, etc.

Roddick lost to other players besides Federer; when Andy was seeded #1 for the only time at a Major in his entire career, he lost to Marat Safin at the 2004 AO in the quarters. So WHAT IF Marat had played better, maybe he would have won 6 to 8 Majors and Roddick none. You can't take one contemporary out of the mix to suddenly anoint someone else the winner, sorry. Federer was his great contemporary nemesis and Roddick never solved him, it happens. After 2004, Sharapova couldn't solve Serena but I'm not about to handle Maria 6-8 more Majors automatically.

The only exception for obvious reasons is Seles versus Graff, now THAT is the ultimate guessing game as to how many more Majors Seles should have and would have won.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Of course as a Patriot fan I reserve the right to state that if wasn't for the fluky lucky NY Giants the PATS would have 8 SuperBowl titles today. ; )

All kidding aside, Isn’t the whole point of winning a Major that you’re the last player standing? It's how you play against all your contemporaries, not 99 % of them. If you eliminate the player that beat you in the final, it’s almost trying to give them the Major without the pressure of winning that last Matchpoint . ; )

Roddick wasn’t good enough to win another Major when he was playing, PERIOD. He was all of, what, 21 when he won the USO? That wasn't enough of a breakthrough to allow him to be the last person standing ever again. (Even then, Nalbandian had MP in the SF's and IF he would have converted that last shot, would he have been able to be the USO champ and get that one elusive Major) As to The whole "he was better than just winning 1 Major".... Well that slippery slope goes both ways.... Connors would have won 5 or 6 more Majors if Borg wasn't around, Rafa could have won 30 Majors if Federer and Djokovic weren't around, Federer also would have won at least 30 also, etc.

Roddick lost to other players besides Federer; when Andy was seeded #1 for the only time at a Major in his entire career, he lost to Marat Safin at the 2004 AO in the quarters. So WHAT IF Marat had played better, maybe he would have won 6 to 8 Majors and Roddick none. You can't take one contemporary out of the mix to suddenly anoint someone else the winner, sorry. Federer was his great contemporary nemesis and Roddick never solved him, it happens. After 2004, Sharapova couldn't solve Serena but I'm not about to handle Maria 6-8 more Majors automatically.

The only exception for obvious reasons is Seles versus Graff, now THAT is the ultimate guessing game as to how many more Majors Seles should have and would have won.

PREACH! Can the pastor get an AMEN from the congregation!

 

[Kieran]

PREACH! Can the pastor get an AMEN from the congregation!

What are you talking about, brother? The discussion is a hypothetical, these can only be argued on the terms of the hypothetical, so in that sense what the Dude is saying is perfectly sensible…

 

[Jelenafan]

What are you talking about, brother? The discussion is a hypothetical, these can only be argued on the terms of the hypothetical, so in that sense what the Dude is saying is perfectly sensible…

OK so if I was 6'-6" I and incredibly gifted I would have been an NBA superstar.

Of course Roddick could have won more if Federer did not exist , but by that reasoning so could have other of Roddick's contemporaries So that hypothetically with seeding, draws, etc everything would all change. But let's play the hypothetical game per the very broad assumption that Roddick would, say, have won Wimbledon if Federer wasn't around simply because Roddick would have automatically still made those 3 finals and beaten whoever joeblow was on the other side.

Let's hypothetically take Lleyton Hewitt, Federer beat him in the qtrs of 2004 Wimbledon and in the SF's of the 2005 Wimbledon, both years in which he beat Roddick in the finals. Lleyton by 2004 had a 4-1 head2head with Roddick, by 2005 he had a 6-1 head2head advantage over Roddick. Lleyton lost the only grass matchup they had before 2009, but hypothetically can anyone seriously say with that head2head record Roddick would have been a slamdunk to have beaten Lleyton, a 2002 Wimbledon champ (and twice Major winner) those particular years?

Hypothetically lets look at Roddick's closest final loss at Wimbledon 2009 to Fedster, Federer beat Tommy Haas in the SF's. OK , Haas ended up his career with a 7-6 head2 head advantage over Roddick. at that time of Wimbledon it was 7-5 Tommy's favor. Hypothetically I could say an inspired Tommy playing his 2nd Major and first Wimbledon, could have beaten Roddick .

So one could argue hypothetically that even without Federer, Roddick would not have ever won Wimbledon.

Funny thing about these hypotheticals....

 

[Kieran]

OK so if I was 6'-6" I and incredibly gifted I would have been an NBA superstar.

Of course Roddick could have won more if Federer did not exist , but by that reasoning so could have other of Roddick's contemporaries So that hypothetically with seeding, draws, etc everything would all change. But let's play the hypothetical game per the very broad assumption that Roddick would, say, have won Wimbledon if Federer wasn't around simply because Roddick would have automatically still made those 3 finals and beaten whoever joeblow was on the other side.

Let's hypothetically take Lleyton Hewitt, Federer beat him in the qtrs of 2004 Wimbledon and in the SF's of the 2005 Wimbledon, both years in which he beat Roddick in the finals. Lleyton by 2004 had a 4-1 head2head with Roddick, by 2005 he had a 6-1 head2head advantage over Roddick. Lleyton lost the only grass matchup they had before 2009, but hypothetically can anyone seriously say with that head2head record Roddick would have been a slamdunk to have beaten Lleyton, a 2002 Wimbledon champ (and twice Major winner) those particular years?

Hypothetically lets look at Roddick's closest final loss at Wimbledon 2009 to Fedster, Federer beat Tommy Haas in the SF's. OK , Haas ended up his career with a 7-6 head2 head advantage over Roddick. at that time of Wimbledon it was 7-5 Tommy's favor. Hypothetically I could say an inspired Tommy playing his 2nd Major and first Wimbledon, could have beaten Roddick .

So one could argue hypothetically that even without Federer, Roddick would not have ever won Wimbledon.

Funny thing about these hypotheticals....

They're not "funny", Jelena, they're exactly what you did right there. They're counter-factual and the basis for very interesting turns in the conversation. You make an excellent point about the other players who Federer beat on his way to face Roddick, but in making this point, you support the idea of the hypothetical, and don't debunk it...