Andy Roddick Stole the Show: Indian Wells-Miami Overview
by Ben Pronin | April 5th, 2010, 9:44 am
  • 96 Comments

About four years ago, March Madness did not exist in tennis. In fact, the only madness there was may have been Federer Madness. Back then, heading into Indian Wells and Miami there was an almost guaranteed victor. That hasn’t been the case for a while now but this year was especially different.

Picking up the slack over the years have been the guys ranked right behind Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Andy Murray. And there was Nikolay Davydenko in Miami a few years ago. But this year, Andy Roddick stole the show and he really was only a few points from completing the IW-Miami double. Nonetheless, I’ll bet he’s more than pleased with his current form.

Always a great personality and fan favorite, Roddick has done something truly extraordinary in tennis. At the ripe old age of 26, he revamped his game and almost completely altered his style. Larry Stefanki went as far as to say that Roddick could imitate Andre Agassi and have his best years from 27 onward. Does anyone doubt that? I can certainly believe it.

A playing style is very much related to a player’s mentality. Players can be impatient or too patient and it’s very visible in their game. Roddick started out as an impatient guy who went for broke 10 feet behind the baseline. Then he became to patient and never went for any shots. Now he’s a perfect blend: patient when he has to be but capable of mixing it up and changing the pace. Right after his win over Tomas Berdych in the final, he told Mary Jo Fernandez that what he liked most about his success over the last months is that he was able to win in different ways.

I’ve always said a weak draw that leads to a clash with Rafael Nadal is the worst scenario. You’ll face a bunch of guys who back down the minute things get tense and then you get their polar opposite in Nadal, who never backs down. But Roddick overcame him with some fearsome play. Then he used a completely different approach filled with soft slices and high loopy balls to take down Berdych. I’m sure people will find plenty of ways to criticize Roddick still but you won’t hear any from me about his overall win. The serve was clicking, the forehand was booming, and still his greatest asset was his between his ears. Congratulations, Andy, you really deserve it.

As for the rest of the top guys, “thank God the hard court season is over.” Federer, Murray, and Djokovic really flailed at both events. Djokovic is suffering from never-ending fatigue. Have you ever heard of a player complain about the schedule two months into the season? He’s making it increasingly difficult to even like him with such a poor attitude towards just about everything tennis related.

Murray is still suffering from the Australian Open final and while his play has been unacceptable, that is a legitimate reason. He played arguably the best he’s ever played in reaching that final and nerves and Federer got the best of him. Clay isn’t exactly his best surface but long rallies could give him a chance to get back into high gear and focus on tennis again. And apparently he’s back with his ex-(hot)-girlfriend, Kim Sears, so he’s plenty happy off the court.

Nadal is probably the happiest of all to be back on clay. Despite playing better than the rest of the top four, he lost some heart-breakers since the start of the season. Excluding his loss to Murray at the Australian Open, Nadal has lost three times while leading by a set. Against Davydenko in Doha he dominated the first set and even had match points before being turned away. Against an aging Ivan Ljubicic who had not beaten Nadal in seven years, he controlled much of the match before losing a third set tiebreaker. And against Roddick, he was running the guy around like a puppet before Roddick changed tactics and Nadal had no clue how to handle him. It’s hard to pick against Nadal on clay but I’m curious to see how he deals with someone that will push him on the red surface.

But of course, there were plenty of other players who played awesome tennis in the last month. Robin Soderling reach the semifinals of both Masters events for the first time. He beat several quality players in both events, including Murray, but came out particularly flat against Berdych in Miami. Marcos Baghdatis scored his first win over Federer but disappointed by not progressing further. Berdych got his second win over Federer and did a great job in backing it up before going down to Roddick in the final. I’ve always liked Berdych but he has thoroughly underachieved in his career. Hopefully this is the turnaround and he’ll continue to grow as a legitimate force on the tour.

And, of course, Ljubicic played the best tennis of his career to win his first ever Masters shield. For all the criticism Federer’s generation got for being weak, isn’t it ironic that Ljubicic would win his first Masters during, what should be, the era of transition and the changing of the guard? Either way, he played fantastic tennis to win and that’s all fans can really ask for. Unlike Berdych, Ljubicic is in the twilight of his career and I doubt he’s going to become a slam contendor any time soon, but  it was good to see him get this monkey off his back after losing several finals back in his better days.

Whether or not your favorites did as well as you would’ve liked (mine certainly didn’t), March was a great month for tennis. 1) With Roddick doing so well in the States, maybe it’ll be the start of Americans caring about tennis. 2) The quality of play was pretty high throughout both events. Some players hit hot streaks, others were playing like crap, but there was plenty of drama and excitement to go around. Hopefully this will be a continuing trend.


Also Check Out:
Andy Murray: The Courts At Indian Wells Are Very Slow, They’re Also Very Slow Here In Miami
Andy Roddick Says “Ask The Boss Lady” Serena About Playing Olympic Mixed Doubles
Nadal v Roddick Lined-up in Miami, Hot Sauce on Deck
Poll: Should Rafael Nadal Skip Indian Wells And/Or Miami?
David Ferrer’s Status For March Is Uncertain After Suffering A Groin Injury In Acapulco

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

96 Comments for Andy Roddick Stole the Show: Indian Wells-Miami Overview

Voicemale1 Says:

For the first time ever in his career, Roddick served not only big, but smartly. His fitness definitely has enabled him to get to more shots than before as well, but he’s become more intelligent about using the serve selectively. His opponents are now guessing more. He hit a number of slowly paced wide sliders to Berdych, making him have to think about what’s coming. Roddick always tired to blowtorch his way through a match trying to serve guys off the court, and expecting that shot would do all of his heavy lifting. It was as if HE was most impressed by how hard he can serve so he kept doing it to the exclusion of all other aspects of a point. But Federer really opened the book on the Roddick descent from #2 by blocking back the serve & rallying better. Others learned and followed suit. Roddick’s constant blasting allowed the better guys to grove on the pace of the serve even though it was a fast pace. Now, he’s forcing them to guess more often on the serve direction and pace. Combined with a new movement he’d not had in maybe 7-8 years.

It’s too easy to give all the credit to Stefanki. But the truth is Roddick sought Stefanki out, and for the first time, actually listened to the wisdom someone like Stefanki had to offer. Without his own desire to be his best Roddick would have gone nowhere. Huge congratulations to him.

Huge kudos to Berdych too. The way he held himself together mentally to upend Federer was exactly what has been missing in his game. His serve definitely went away Saturday and it hurt him – in fact you wonder what the match would have been like had he been closer to 60% First Serve Percentage rather than right at 50%. But he had a good North American swing: QF at IW and Title Match in Miami. Well done to him.


MMT Says:

This is the second post referring to Roddick’s so-called “easy” draw prior to the semi-final, but this is just non-sense – after all each player he faced was playing well enough to make it through the draw, and Roddick did the job against all of them.

I really don’t understand what it’s all about – an easy draw – it’s meaningless if you don’t get through it, and then if you do, it was easy. Rubbish. It only looks easy when you get through it, which is what Roddick did.

It’s also blatantly ignorant of the fact that he and Nadal have been playing the best in the Indian Wells – Miami swing of the tour, so why assume that he wouldn’t have gotten through a “tough” draw?

The man’s been ranked in the top 10 for the last 8 10 years, has won at least 1 title every year he’s been on tour and $17 million in prize money, so what are we really talking about here?


Ben Pronin Says:

That came out wrong. I didn’t actually say Roddick had an easy draw, but others have. I agree about it being meaningless, I don’t care if it was “easy” or not. But I’m just saying that Almagro is the type of guy who will fade away and then Nadal is the type to never back down. It’s hard, sometimes, to transition from one to the other especially considering how good Nadal is in genearl.


MMT Says:

While I agree that Almagro, competitively, is no Nadal – who is? And even if he’d faced him in a quarterfinal instead of a semi-final, the result would probably be the same, given how well he was playing for the last month.


Skorocel Says:

As for the rest of the top guys, “thank God the hard court season is over.”

LOL :-) You really nailed it with this one, Ben!


Ben Pronin Says:

That’s my point, MMT. People try to downplay the victory by saying the draw was easy. Tennis, in general, is not easy. Winning, in general, is even harder. And then beating Nadal is maybe as hard as it gets. So while people are saying that Roddick’s draw was easy so his victory doesn’t count or whatever, they forget that he had to go through Nadal after facing it-doesn’t-matter-who. And even if he hadn’t faced Nadal, I don’t care. A win is a win. A title is a title. It’s the way Roddick beat Nadal that made it so enjoyable.


skeezerweezer Says:

“Tennis is about the last man standing”, not the ones sitting down looking at the draw…


skeezerweezer Says:

“Skorocel Says:

As for the rest of the top guys, “thank God the hard court season is over.”

Didn’t Fed say that last year after the HC season? Now we have a bunch of guys saying it? LOL


Marty Says:

roddiick is playing the best tennis of his life. he has learned patience when necessary, something he did not do before. Roddick could always be counted on to commit an unforced error. No more. And the better his grounstrokes are, the more pressure he puts on other players to hold their serve. He wil win a Gs this year.


MJ Says:

So proud of Andy for winning yesterday…LOVE Rafa, sad he lost, but Andy was just better…but you NOT deny that Andy had an easy draw…the first ranked player he played (#33) was in the quarters…if Rafa had won, all would be saying, he only won because the top 3 were out…Just sayin…


Von Says:

MMT: Thank you for your insightful post.

Sean Randall, in his previous two articles mentioned that Roddick was given (1) a favourable draw, and (2) a cup cake draw (whatever that is). I’ve learnt over the past two years that Roddick will never get his just dues from Mr. Randall, and have ceased wondering why.

Any player’s draw which has Nadal or Federer waiting for them in the QF or SF, IMO, does not have an easy draw. Ergo, I don’t know what Sean Randall is talking about.

BTW, I came across a picture of you on another tennis site, to which I subscribe, and all I can say is: ‘Hey, good lookin’.


I like tennis bullies Says:

*** With Roddick doing so well in the States, maybe it’ll be the start of Americans caring about tennis.***

must be hard for americans to care when there’s no tennis to be found on tv and cbs insists on cutting off awards ceremonies when an american wins.


Von Says:

CBS jammed a ton of commercials in the last five minutes of their tennis programming, why?? That’s just about the amount of time that was needed to show the presentation of the trophy and the players speeches. And, non-Americans state that our TV stations are biased towards Americans LOLZ. CBS SUCKZ!!


rsp Says:

” For all the criticism Federer’s generation got for being weak, isn’t it ironic that Ljubicic would win his first Masters during, what should be, the era of transition and the changing of the guard? ”

A nice way of looking at it…I am sure Fed fans will like that!


Cindy_Brady Says:

Roddick had lucky easy draws in both events. Case closed!

The Von’s of this site are still delusional. Look for Roddick to make a quick exit at the French. He’s scared to play at Monte Carlo or Rome. He knows he’s a lousy clay court player. A one trick pony with a big serve.

His cream puff draws will eventually catch up to him and his one dimensional game.


Polo Says:

At least Roddick won, unlike the rest of the players who competed in Miami who all lost. I think some of them got draws that were too tough for them. I’d rather get easy draws and win than get a tough draw that I could not win. I believe someone who does not win is called a loser regardless of how tough his draw is.


blank Says:

Andy Murray has accepted a wild card to enter the Monte Carlo Masters.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8601708.stm

I think, unlike last year and wisely so, Federer is going to stay out until Rome.


MMT Says:

Von: not sure what site that was (or how you know it’s me, for that matter) but thank you. If it’s the photo I think it is, ironically my wife’s not a fan of it – go figure.

Cindy, Cindy, CINDY! Roddick, 1 trick pony? I would beg to differ. Karlovic, for sure, but not Roddick.

If you add having been ranked year-end #1 and his Davis Cup record to the career statistics above, I think he has a strong case Newport, RI.

As for clay – fair enough, it is not his favorite surface, but I would point out that he has 5 career titles on clay plus 2 additional finals (losses to Agassi and Haas – no slouches).

Okay, so those were closer to the start of his career, but he did reach the Madrid quarter-final last year, and took a set off of Federer. Apart from that he also has 2 semi-finals and an additional quarterfinal in Rome.


funches Says:

Roddick has always been a smart server. This idea that he suddenly has learned to take pace off his serve and mix it up is crazy. He was serving and volleying on his kick second serve as a change of pace five years ago.

He played as well as he can play in the semis against Nadal and Berdych, but his A game is still not as good as the A game of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or del Potro. That’s not a slam on Roddick. It’s just reality. Even after slimming down and improving his quickness considerably, he does not move nearly as well as any of them.

Roddick can be a factor in slams again, but he missed his best opportunity to bag a second one against Federer last year. I doubt he’ll ever get that close again. He’s had a Hall of Fame career, but he’s not quite good enough to meet the overly high expectations that have been placed on him as America’s best player of the last several years.


Skeezerweezer Says:

Polo,

” I believe someone who does not win is called a loser regardless of how tough his draw is ”

Skeezer says…..”Classic”…..

………Again! You’re on fire! Nice dart throwin :)


Ben Pronin Says:

Roddick will get into the Hall of Fame easily.

It’s not just movement, but overall Roddick isn’t as talented as the Federers and Nadals, but talent isn’t everything in tennis.

Didn’t Federer also take a wild card to Monte Carlo?


Skeezerweezer Says:

“Cindy_Brady Says:

Roddick had lucky easy draws in both events. Case closed!”

Uh..case opened…

“I’d rather be lucky than good”….heard of that one?

In Roddicks case, however, he was not good, nor lucky, he was great! Totally deserved it.

Arguing about “lucky” up here ain’t gonna get you no satisfaction….

(Thanks Mick…)

Now…case closed.


Kimmi Says:

No player bring their A game all of the time. as long as Roddick is keeping himself available at the business end of major tournaments – he has a chance.

he is already beaten Murray, Djoko, nadal. Some of them playing pretty good when they lost to Roddick. who else does he have to beat to win a slam? these are the players he needs to beat to win one, add federer, davydenko, delpotro, soderling etc to that list…it is possible.

This kind of game, roddick also did very successful at wimbledon last year. I believe if he continue to play (serve) like he did last week – he will give himself a chance at wimbledon, USO even AO. All the best to him.


Ben Pronin Says:

Roddick has shown that he can basically beat everyone except Federer. Rather, he can beat everyone but he hasn’t beaten Federer. Or Del Potro…


Kimmi Says:

But he has beaten federer twice and “almost” beat him at wimbledon last year..

Delpo matches have been very close


Kimmi Says:

“Rather, he can beat everyone but he hasn’t beaten Federer”

Ben, just to add – why you don’t count those two wins roddick had over federer? a win is a win.


Ruans Federer Blog Says:

Kimmi, good point. Lets give Roddick his due. This is not the time to oversee Roddicks achievements.


Ben Pronin Says:

Because they were pre-Stefanki. I’m talking about the current Roddick that, to me, came out last year. I’m not saying Roddick has never beaten Federer, but his last win wasn’t recent and both of them were very different players from where they are now.

That said, Roddick hadn’t beaten Nadal since before he last beat Federer so it really doesn’t matter. H2H provides confidence for one of the players but it can also be completely meaningless. If there was ever a player who was completely unaffected by h2h against players it has to be Roddick.


Kimmi Says:

ben: good points. the stefanki era sees roddick taking federer to five sets at wimbledon. before stefanki roddick was never that close to federer in Grand slams.

he needs to keep it up. he lost some of it after that big loss to federer at wimbledon final last year…it seem to be coming back again.


jane Says:

Roddick was within a hair’s breath of beating Fed in his “living room” last year, i.e., at Wimbledon, and he beat Berdych and Murray along the way to that final. Roddick can win even playing against Fed, especially if Fed has an off serving day/set, but if someone else happens to take out Fed before the final at Wimbledon or the USO then surely Roddick – if he is playing like he is now and making his way through his draw – would be a top contender to win either of those slams. I wouldn’t count him out; he’s got a great attitude and work ethic, not to mention a great fit in his coach. He’s in a good place tennis-wise right now. Great win in Miami for Andy!


funches Says:

It’s not that Roddick can’t beat a certain player.

It’s that Roddick is highly unlikely to beat a series of great players in a slam. He almost did it last year at Wimbledon, but that was the exception rather than the rule for him. He does not have many wins over top 10 players in his career at slams. If history is a guide, he’ll need a bunch of upsets around him to have a good chance to win Wimbledon or the U.S. Open this year.


Von Says:

MMT: I saw it on Craig Hickman’s blog.


Von Says:

MMT: “Okay, so those were closer to the start of his career, but he did reach the Madrid quarter-final last year, and took a set off of Federer. Apart from that he also has 2 semi-finals and an additional quarterfinal in Rome.”

Oh please, let’s not forget R16 at the FO in ’09. We’ve got to add every little clay success we can find. LOL.


Long Live The King Says:

First and foremost congrats to A-rod for winning and his biggest fan Von for staying on the Andy roddick bandwagon and not jumping to greener pastures like a lot of previous a-rod fans who masquerade as nadal or djokovic fans….. there is something to be said about loyalty like Von’s. Keep it going Von :)

Now coming to some house-keeping, I wonder who let cindy beach out of the assylum she is kept locked in. I wonder if she again bit a few nurses and escaped to grace us with the sheet that her head is loaded with.

Cindy beach (i am sure that is your last name, it suits you better), my post is a pity post for you. I am sure most sane people wouldn’t want to feed a rabid beach like you with responses, but I will take pity on you and spit this post at your ugly face!


Long Live The King Says:

Much respect to MMT for putting the Cindy Beach in her place, in his own inimitable way :)

Must be such a slap for the shameless beach! I am sure she will be back spewing some retarded stuff, soon. hope the assylum people catch her and lock her up….


Ben Pronin Says:

If Roddick were to win Wimbledon or one of the other majors and finally claim that second major, it could be just the boost for him to actually win several more. Think Federer and how he was able to win his second so soon and just kept it going and going. I don’t think Roddick will win 16 or anything, but if he were to win Wimbledon, I think he could claim an Australian Open at some point. The AO has been his best overall slam in terms of results so if he got confidence from a Wimbledon, I think there’s a good chance he’ll end his career with 3/4 majors.


jane Says:

Ben says, “The AO has been his best overall slam in terms of results” – Hmmmm. Not sure what you mean by “in terms of results”? Andy has never reached an AO final as far as I know; however, I know he has been in *3 Wimbledon finals*: 2004, 2005, and 2009. Plus he’s been in 2 USO finals: 2003 (won) and 2006. So I still don’t get why you say the AO is his “best overall slam”, though I am not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, i.e., that he could win there, and that winning another major could spur more wins.


Ben Pronin Says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_roddick#Records_and_achievements

Ok so it’s not particularly better than his US and Wimbledon results but I feel like he’s been more consistent there. He’s obviously been closer to winning Wimbledon and repeating at the US. I have to say I’m pretty much wrong but he could still definitely win there.


I like tennis bullies Says:

sean randall is so upset that roddick won they wont update their trunk/funk list ha ha


Skorocel Says:

skeezerweezer: “Didn’t Fed say that last year after the HC season? Now we have a bunch of guys saying it? LOL”

Yep, it was Fed. And (except maybe Nadal) it pretty much sums up the performances of the Top 4 in IW & Miami…


Erik Says:

Roddick’s game and tactics are improving. Most importantly he believes he can improve, and win majors. That attitute will carry him far. He will never be a favorite to win a major, but I wouldnt be at all suprised if it happened.


Hartmut Hesse Says:

Miami Sony Ericsson Open Analysis

The first part of the hard-court season is finished with the finals of the Miami Open and the pros are preparing for the clay-court season already.
The tournament in Miami came up some surprise upsets for some of the big names and it also came up with a new name and some very familiar one’s.
Thomas Berdych is for sure the biggest surprise in this tournament. Not only that he beat Federer in a very close match going the distance and into a third set tiebreaker, by fighting off a match-point, he also kept going all the way to the final. This was a new Berdych, we saw in Miami. He was always considered as one of the next big stars in tennis and Nike gave him a huge contract at an early age. But he could never quite live up to his expectations. The one thing fans and experts were missing in his game, was the fighting spirit and the determination that a true champion needs. Too many matches he lost when it got into a deciding set or when the conditions were not easy and comfortable.
But here in Miami a different Thomas Berdych showed up. He grinded out the rallys from the baseline, he was much more patient with his shot selection and most of all he never gave up. If he can keep playing with the same attitude, he will finally silence all his critics and become a top 10 player soon. But it will not be easy to carry the momentum into the next tournaments, since the is a surface change from hard-courts to clay-courts. But his newly found qualities will help him even more on a surface like clay. So, it will be exciting to see how he will do in Monte Carlo when all the clay-court specialists show up.
Not only with him getting better and better, the men’s ranking is getting more interesting, because all the top 10 players a moving closer to each other. Soderling, Tsonga and Roddick are pushing the to 6 players and the top 6 did not do very well in the last to ATP-1000 events. With Daydenko and Del Potro injured and Djokovic and Murray not at their top level, it was only Nadal who showed some signs of form. Even Federer lost some points and opened the door for the other guys (Roger has many points to defend in the next months).
But besides Berdych, it was Roddick who showed the best form and (even with lucky draws in both tournaments) was the talk of the hard-court season so far. We will see how he can carry the form into the clay-court tournaments, if he plays many at all. But it should give him confidence to try a few more clay-court events this year, especially since his game became much more consistent and he lost some weight. This will all help him on the European clay-courts.

On the woman’s side there were not too many surprises even though the top 2 players of the tournament went out before the quarterfinals already. Kuznetsova was injured and for new world No. 2, Caroline Wozniacki, Justine Henin was too big a bite, even though she won a set against the former world number one. So, it wasn’t really a surprise to see Henin and Clijsters in the semi finals. And again they showed their fans a thriller that was decided in a tiebreaker again. Just like in the beginning of the year in Australia. And it was the same outcome as well. Clijsters won again and then went on to take the title from a slightly injured Venus Williams 6:2, 6:1! With this win Clisters stormed back into the top 10 and for sure, Justine will follow her soon, especially considering the fact that we will be playing on clay in a few weeks. Serena was not playing in the tournament and if she is not getting back into shape soon, she will lose her No. 1 ranking. Probably to Kim Clijsters, if she decides to play a few more tournaments.
I think it is great to have the two Belgium champions back on the woman’s tour and I can’t wait to have one of the on the top spot of the rankings again.
But for sure we will see a big shuffle in both rankings, the woman’s and the men’s.
Exciting weeks are ahead of us and on top of that, I think the most interesting matches are played on clay, anyways.
Let’s see what happens and who will shine on the new surface!?

Hartmut Hesse
Hesse Tennis Training
Professional Training and Coaching for Top Juniors and Professionals


David Says:

I could see one swan song major for Roddick for sure. But let’s not get carried away. Federer’s going to be around for several more years it appears and there’s just no way Roddick’s going to pass Roger, imo. Nadal, Djokovic, Murray can all turn things around in the near future. Delpo will be tough when he gets healthy. Cilic is a player to look out for. So saying Roddick could win several more majors is just not realistic. He’d have to be a dominant player to do that, and he’s just never going to be that good of a player.


SG Says:

I’d agree that Roddick, in full control of his game, can beat pretty much anyone. Roddick’s issue with Federer is both simple and complicated. If Andy could improve his return of serve by say 15%, he’d be a much more dangerous adversary for Federer. But, getting that 15% isn’t easy. Return of serve is so instinctive. I’m not sure that at this point in his career, he can develop this instinct. The best returners seem be great at it from the day they step on the court. It’s a weapon for those with the quick twitch muscle fiber to execute.


Fot Says:

SG I agree. Roddick has always been able to hold his serve pretty well, but if you notice whenever he plays Roger, in just about every match they play, Roger out ‘aces’ Roddick. It’s not about ROddick holding serve. It’s about Roddick breaking serve with Roger. Look how many times Roddick held his serve in Wimbledon, but the one time he didn’t – he lost the match. So I agree, Roddick has improved in several areas but the one that he needs to work on (especially when he plays Roger) is his return of serve game.

I recently went back and re-watched that US Open match where I called it “men in black vs men in black” – the one where Agassi was calling in the booth as well? Roddick, for the first 2 sets, held serve every single time. The problem was that Roger held serve too. But Roger won the important points in the tiebreak. I was thinking, at that time, that this match could end up 7-6 7-6 7-6, but in that 3rd set, Roddick lost his serve and Roger ran away with the last set.

Roddick played great. He served great, his era count was low; his serve percentage was high – yet he could not and did not break Roger’s serve the entire match, even when he had a few breakpoints.

You know every player has that one area that they are weak in. Roger with that high back-hand shot; and to me, Roddick’s return game is a little weak. But he has improved overall in just about every other aspect of his game which shows you’re never too old to improve!


David Says:

Fot

You’re right about Roddick’s inability to break, but if you look at his matches against Fed, there’s also been an inability to hold as well. Last year’s Wimbledon and that 07 USO match are exceptions, but out of the 19 times they’ve played, I’d venture to guess Federer has broken Roddick once a set.

The big key for Roddick if he’s going to have hold consistently and get some breaks, and therefore a big win against Roger at a Slam (assuming Fed is playing well, and by the way I think last year’s Wimbledon final was one of the worst big matches I’ve seen Fed play) is to get out of his comfort zone and go for his forehand.

He showed it against Nadal. He has that weapon and he has to know that that’s his ticket to beating the top guys. He’s just simply not going to beat Federer or any of the top guys with that loopy, do-nothing forehand that he uses against most of the field.


Cindy_Brady Says:

Yes, Andy Roddick is so accomplished on clay. The French Open which is a test of both fitness and all around game, Roddick has failed miserably over the years. Let’s take a stroll down French Open memory lane.

2001) lost in 3rd round
2002) lost in 1st round
2003) lost in 1st round
2004) lost in 2nd round
2005) lost in 2nd round
2006) lost in 1st round
2007) lost in 1st round
2008) did not play ( Thank God)
2009) lost in 4th round

Roddick isn’t even a top 100 player on clay.

I rest my case!


andrea Says:

there is no denying this element of cindy’s post:

“Look for Roddick to make a quick exit at the French. He’s scared to play at Monte Carlo or Rome. He knows he’s a lousy clay court player.”

who knows? maybe one fateful year andy will not face roger in the wimbledon final. it worked for roger at the french with nadal out of the loop.

he definitely played smart tennis to win the title, despite the fact i never root for the guy.


NELTA Says:

David is correct. Federer has an uncanny ability to get his racket on Roddick’s serve and block it back in play. He only had 25 aces in 75 games plus 2 tiebreaks in the Wimby final. Getting those extra returns in play has historically resulted in more breaks than Roddick usually gives up. Contrast this with Rafa, who Roddick usually aces close to once per game. That means he would have had about 75 aces at Wimby in a match with that many games. What made the match out of the ordinary was that Fed was missing more of those block returns than normal and could only convert 1 of 7 break points. Maybe this will be the new normal and Fed will have more trouble getting Roddick’s serve in play.

Fed’s skill and preference for blocking back returns might be a good matchup against Roddick, but it hurts him against Rafa.

Roddick’s % of return games won has always been poor and it doesn’t get any better when he plays Federer. He is currently #50 in this department in 2010, but #1 in % of service games won. Fed does rack up the aces against Roddick, but I don’t see him changing this. He has already lost weight and improved quickness which should help his ability to stay in rallies or play defense when necessary. This will keep him competitive in return games. Your ability to see the serve off the racket and react is one of those intangible things that Roddick just doesn’t have.


Dan Martin Says:

Von, Thanks. I do disagree with Wertheim who recently stated he could not vote to put Yevgeny Kafelnikov into the hall of fame. I think even if YK was a major jerk who tanked more often than he should have his career numbers warrant Hall of Fame status. 2 slams, 1 slam runner-up, an Olympic gold, world #1 and 4 slams in doubles seems to be more than say Yanick Noah or Michal Chang accomplished and they are both in the hall of fame already.


Cindy_Brady Says:

Dan Martin,

The tennis hall of fame seems to relaxed on who they are allowing in. Michael Chang and Yanich Noah both don’t deserve to be there imo. They seem to lower the bar every year.

But if that’s the criteria they are going by then Yevgeny Kafelnikov earns a spot too by a better overall body of work.

I think a player (man or woman) should have to win a minimum of 5 grand slams to be considered. Keep it very exclusive and special. Otherwise, the Hall of fame loses status imo letting “them” in.


David Says:

Cindy

That would be an incredibly restrictive HoF if you had a minimum 5 Slam requirement. Roddick is arguably one of the 5 best players of the last 10 years. Imagine being one of the 5 best baseball players in a given decade. You’d be a first-ballot hall of famer for sure. Obviously Roddick has been denied numerous Slams by one player, who happens to have the greatest record in history. So I think that works in his favor as well.


Eliza Says:

A Hall of Fame where every One Slam Wonder is let in is no true Hall of fame. Or are the OSWs only let in if they are American and/or charismatic? Since Kafelnekov is neither it’s lucky for him he won two slams. Bad luck for the uncharismatic and non American Costa, Gaudio and Johansson.


Cindy_Brady Says:

Eliza,

Don’t forget about Pat Cash, Johan Kriek (2 oz opens), and Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, and Goran Ivanisevic. Let em all in!!

David,

I think the Hall of fame should be very restrictive and hard as Hell to get into. Andy Roddick is no Hall of fame player. One lucky win at the U.S Open doesn’t qualify in my book. Who did he beat to win that title, Oh yes a clay court specialist named ferrero – WOW stellar!

What’s he done since BUTKIS. Nadal was able to beat Federer at Wimbledon, Australia, and the French. Del Potro beat Fed at the U.S Open. Djokovic and Safin at the Australian Open. They all rose to the occasion but poor Roddick can’t beat him even once in a grand slam. Some Hall of famer he is. He only shows up when the competition is weak and his draw is favorable.

To many Roddick nut huggers on this site.


Andrew Miller Says:

Roddick and clay are like sandpaper and bare a–. He has good wins on the stuff (as Sampras did also) but this tournament essentially proves that Roddick is a great hardcourt player, which everyone already knew.

It was no doubt devastating for Nadal to lose, again, in Miami, where he’s come close but never won.

As for the clay, maybe it’s Soderling’s moment and maybe Caro W’s moment. They are both in good shape and that’s a good thing for the sport.


Andrew Miller Says:

(My hope is for Roddick to win another slam and for Blake to make at least a semifinal. It’s up to them to prove us all right or wrong! Roddick has a better chance).

It will be tough though. Miami also proves that Roddick wins tournaments, or can win them, when Federer’s out. So someone has to beat Federer on the grass. Maybe with Nadal’s lower ranking it could lead to a Roddick-Nadal final on the grass – where Roddick has a better shot (Nadal of course would have taken out Federer in a semifinal).


Von Says:

Dan: You’re welcome. I agree on Kafelnikov. I think Wertheim seems to be getting a bit carried away in his thinking.


Andrew Miller Says:

Hey stop knocking JC Ferrero! He’s dealt with stuff that Federer had not faced.

1) Ferrero was the high-riser in 2003 along with Federer. He finally wins his French Open (after his final against Al Costa in 2002, which made no sense).

2) Davis Cup: Ferrero, as much as Nadal, has been a force in Spanish Davis Cup and probably should have played the 2004 tie, which somehow had Nadal playing #2 singles for Spain despite the fact that Spain had many more players ahead of Nadal (and all of them available – Ferrer, Verdasco, Robredo, Ferrero, Feliciano Lopez…all available). When Ferrero lost that spot (in part because of a recovery from chicken pox), it basically ushered in the Nadal era.

3) Illness – Ferrero got Chicken pox as an adult, which is far worse than that of children.

So I’d cut Ferrero some slack. He has not come back to the Ferrero of 2003, but he’s certainly come back (maybe because it pays the bills).


Andrew Miller Says:

If Roddick wins the French Open, I will donate $25 to tennis-x.


Von Says:

WOW, a writer writes an article on Roddick because he’s done something commendable and the haters turn it into a bashing contest.

I’m not at all surprised to see andrea teaming up with the Brady. They’re both cut from the same mould, they hate themselves = they hate everyone. Thank God he realized his mistake and broke the mould into smithereens after casting those two. sheesh.

NO, there aren’t any Roddick ‘nut huggers’ on this site, but too many *hugger-muggers* in the form of andrea, Cindy Brady and Eliza Dolittle, who spout VENOM because they are VENEMOUS.

I’d like to see brady and andrea pick up a racquet and win a match or better yet, maybe they could give each other a good whacking on the mouth since nothing good comes out.
___________________
Andrew Miller: “Miami also proves that Roddick wins tournaments, or can win them, when Federer’s out.”

Well, this is not only pertinent to Roddick. We can say the same about the other top 4 winning tournaments, especially the MS, since Fed’s exited early several times in the past, thus opening up the draw. That has been the situation over the past 4 years that whenever Fed got eliminated, then the others were able to hoist the trophy.


Andrew Miller Says:

I agree it certainly does prove that – once Federer’s out, anyone can win. Same for Nadal at RG – when Soderling knocked everyone else out it was “anyone’s tournament” and Federer’s vulnerability (“burden of expectations”) just deepened the field’s confidence. Good call!

So if Roddick does win Wimbledon, I think it has to be similar to this: Roddick, Federer and two other players make the semifinals. Roddick wins his matchup against another player in the 1st semifinal. Then, Federer loses to another player (Nadal or someone else) in the “tougher” semifinal. Then Roddick wins Wimbledon.

Federer has to lose at just the right moment for Roddick’s chances to go through the roof. Just my opinion. I think Roddick-Federer is always a bad matchup.


Andrew Miller Says:

(If he does play Federer in a slam final again, Stefanki better not let Roddick play any practice sets with Federer during the tournament! I still think that was Roddick’s worst move of 2007 to play Federer in a practice set in Melbourne and essentially show Federer his hand).


Von Says:

I agree with you andrew. Roddick should never have played any practise sets with Fed at the AO in ’07. He showed his hand to Fed, and it was detrimental.


Von Says:

It’s sad that some people like Brady and andrea can’t engage in constructive discussions, but just use threads like this one as a conduit to vent the infestation of hate that’s enveloped their thought processes. Hate breeds more hate guys, but carry on smartlessly as you’ve always done.


Andrew Miller Says:

FoT is right about Roddick: he improves every year!

It’s no longer “Roddick: big serve and forehand”

It hasn’t been that way for a while (since August 2006) but it’s even more pronounced.


Polo Says:

Von, I would rather be called a Roddick “nut-hugger” than be put in the same category as those people who write negative comments that serve no purpose other than to provoke and irritate others.


Andrew Miller Says:

WTA: I give the nod to Caro Wozni for the French Open. I dont know if that is a good or bad thing for her!!! (See Majoli, Iva; Ivanovic, Ana; Mykina, etc…)


Von Says:

Polo: Thank you — you’re bang on. They have absolutely nothing of importance to add to this thread or most threads for that matter. I wonder why they even bother to comment. However, one good thing came from their negativity, they’ve found each other in cyberspace. sheesh


Von Says:

Andrew Miller: Did you read my post @ 9:20 pm? If yes, do you still think ikt applies to only roddick?


David Says:

Eliza

I think Hall of Fame considerations should be about numbers but also about context.

You compare Roddick to Gaudio, Costa and Johansson, and while of course you’re right that they’re all one-Slam winners, I think the phrase “one-Slam wonder” only applies to the latter three because of how incredible their runs to a Slam title were.

In Roddick’s case, I wouldn’t call him a one-Slam wonder. In my opinion, if Roddick played in any other era he would be a five or six Slam champ. He, like many other people, Hewitt comes to mind, had the misfortune of player in Roger’s era and coming up short again and again. But we’re talking in most people’s minds the single greatest player of all time. Roddick deserves some leeway in that context.

Let’s not forget that he was a world No. 1. He’s been in 5 Slam finals and won 29 career titles, more than Kafelnikov and way more than Rafter. And he’s still got plenty of time to add to that total and obviously win another Slam. He’s been a fixture in the top 10 and consistently been a Slam contender year after year. We can’t say that about Gaudio or Johansson or Costa, who really were one-Slam wonders because they literally came out of virtually nowhere to win their Slams.


Dan Martin Says:

JCF is underrated to my mind. FO 2000 and 2001 he loses to Guga in the semis. In 2002 nerves and some injuries hurt him in his runner-up finish. 2003 he goes AO – QF, FO – Title, W – Rd of 16, USO runner-up and then 2004 AO Semifinals – then he gets chicken pox/shingles. Since that time he has some nice results in smaller events and oddly a lot of pretty good Wimbledon showings. 2000-2003 he is a top 2 player on clay, 2003 he had the best year in majors on the tour and 2004 he started off with a nice semifinal before illness caught up to him.

I think Roddick is showing he has a lot of fight in him. I think Miami will help his belief heading into the grass and second hard court season.

Yevgeny kafelnikov is to my mind suffering from a lack of Rafter’s looks and charisma if he fails to get into the Hall of Fame. He did play too many matches most seasons and this led to a lot of uneven performances. Still, his numbers are good in singles and doubles. He is the last male player to win the singles and doubles title at the same slam event which makes him the last of what was once an important breed. Chang, Noah and Rafter achieved less than YK on total and they are all 3 in the Hall of Fame.

I think Safin will and should get in as well, but that would only make YK’s exclusion worse. Unlike Safin or Rafter he has a gold medal and has 4 doubles slams to 1 for Rafter and 0 for Safin. He also won slams on two distinct surfaces. Rafter won two on fast hard courts and Safin won 1 on a fast and 1 on a slow hard court. I think Hewitt’s total weeks at #1 puts him in front of YK in terms of overall work, but YK’s trophy case stacks up well with Safin & Rafter’s and is ahead of Chang and Noah’s trophy case.


blank Says:

Von @ 9:20. That made me laugh :-)


Ben Pronin Says:

The inclusion of Noah and Chang makes players like Kafelnikov a should-be shoe-in. Why YK is even up for debate is beyond me.

I think JCF’s injuries were followed by a confidence crisis and in that time, the game went past him. He’s still a capable player but he gets demolished by the top players. Murray dissected him several times last year and you just knew there was nothing Ferrero could do to hurt him. Same against Tsonga in Miami just last week.

Of active players, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Federer, and Nadal should be guaranteed spots. Well Safin isn’t active anymore… Djokovic and Murray still have time but we’ll see what happens.


Andrew Miller Says:

Von’s 9:20 pm certainly accurate re: Roddick.

Dan Martin/Ben Pronin are right re: JCF. In my book: JCF under-rated because he’s simply been as good as Tommy Haas or better than many streaky top-ten players (Ferrer, Baghdatis, Robredo, Blake, Verdasco, etc – all except the consistently excellent Davydenko, Del Potro, Federer, Roddick, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic).

That JC Ferrero made TWO Wimbledon quarterfinals (2007, 2009), one Aussie semifinal, two French semifinals, one final and one French grand slam final – for a clay court specialist formerly allergic to grass, that has to prove that JCF has a lot of heart.

We talk a lot about what James Blake “could be,” but at the end of the day, JC Ferrero doesnt talk at all and shows Blake “how it’s done.” I apologize for always comparing players to James Blake, but Blake to me shows the pitfalls of inconsistency.

Inconsistency plus deficient strategy plus inflexibility leads to inconsistent results. Consistency plus strategy plus flexibility equals top 20.

In the top 51 players (below – Blake is #51) there is only one player who seems capable of being consistent on any given day – Lleyton Hewitt (John Isner certainly knocking on the door of consistent players if the bar is “top 20″). Otherwise, it’s a lot of streaks! So much for flamboyant and fun…it only goes so far!

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,765 0 19
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 7,630 0 21
3 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 6,980 1 18
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 5,845 -1 17
5 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 5,735 0 19
6 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 5,335 0 27
7 Roddick, Andy (USA) 4,780 1 20
8 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 4,595 -1 26
9 Cilic, Marin (CRO) 2,980 0 23
10 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 2,915 0 23
11 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,880 0 20
12 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) 2,725 0 26
13 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 2,380 2 28
14 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,340 -1 26
15 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 2,310 -1 26
16 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 2,270 4 27
17 Ferrer, David (ESP) 2,045 0 26
18 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 2,040 -2 25
19 Stepanek, Radek (CZE) 1,895 -1 23
20 Haas, Tommy (USA) 1,775 -1 19
21 Isner, John (USA) 1,728 0 23
22 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,685 0 26
23 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI) 1,630 0 21
24 Monaco, Juan (ARG) 1,630 2 26
25 Querrey, Sam (USA) 1,610 0 27
26 Simon, Gilles (FRA) 1,585 -2 25
27 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 1,540 0 18
28 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 1,485 0 28
29 Karlovic, Ivo (CRO) 1,385 0 23
30 Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) 1,345 0 23
31 Bellucci, Thomaz (BRA) 1,322 1 27
32 Montanes, Albert (ESP) 1,305 -1 27
33 Kohlschreiber, Philipp (GER) 1,265 0 27
34 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP) 1,220 4 26
35 Lopez, Feliciano (ESP) 1,205 -1 26
36 Benneteau, Julien (FRA) 1,094 1 29
37 Troicki, Viktor (SRB) 1,075 -2 30
38 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB) 1,075 -2 28
39 Becker, Benjamin (GER) 1,034 0 33
40 Garcia-Lopez, Guillermo (ESP) 964 1 29
41 Andreev, Igor (RUS) 930 -1 31
42 Kubot, Lukasz (POL) 922 1 20
43 Hanescu, Victor (ROU) 920 -1 30
44 Chardy, Jeremy (FRA) 920 4 32
45 Gulbis, Ernests (LAT) 904 0 24
46 Mayer, Florian (GER) 892 3 25
47 Seppi, Andreas (ITA) 885 0 31
48 Mathieu, Paul-Henri (FRA) 875 -4 24
49 Petzschner, Philipp (GER) 862 4 29
50 Berrer, Michael (GER) 860 1 28
51 Blake, James (USA)


funches Says:

Kafelnikov is up for debate because he was a first-class jerk who repeatedly tanked matches. The Hall of Fame is about more than raw numbers.

Noah is in because he was a charismatic minority player (in a sport that was lilly white at the time) whose run to the Roland Garros title in 1983 was one of the most stirring emotional events in the history of tennis. Storylines matter more than raw stats.

Chang is in because his run as a teenager in 89 Roland Garros was one of the most amazing accomplishments in tennis history (even though I was pulling for him to lose every step of the way). He’s by far the best Asian player in tennis history, and that counts, too, as well as his incredible effort level every time he stepped on the court.

Rafter is in because he had a beautiful game – again, that does and should matter – and his two U.S. Open titles were more impressive than Kafelnikov’s Roland Garros and Australian Open (when Sampras did not play) titles.

I’ve never understood why so many people get furious when anything but raw numbers are used to determine Hall of Fame worthiness. If Kafelnikov had not been a sourpuss whose effort level was deplorable at times, he’d be in already, and that’s the way it should be. There should be consequences for being a lousy ambassador for your sport. And for what it’s worth, he never won a Masters Series event, so there are on-court reasons to vote against him.

One other thing: Although I was skeptical of Roddick’s chance to win another slam earlier in this thread, his detractors write things that are beyond idiotic. How could a sane person compare his career to Ferrero’s and say they are similar? He’s been a top 10 player for nearly a decade, a serious contender at two slams for nearly a decade and never fallen off the face of the earth like Ferrero. Seriously, anyone who thinks Roddick is not deserving of the Hall of Fame has a brain the size of a pea.


Skeezerweezer Says:

“C”… When you have the “gonads” to have an opinion without provoking and name calling maybe someone….anyone…someday. will listen and acknowledge you……”B”

Andrew,

Thanks for the post,

Yeah I have a soft spot for Blake, great human story, nice guy, thought he would produce better results..so WTF? happened to him? 51? Geeez…..


Cindy_Brady Says:

Von,

Don’t blame CBS, they realize how irrelevant Roddick’s win was because he beat a nobody in the final. They wanted to get it off the air as quickly as possible to boost TV ratings.

NOT having Federer or Nadal in the final is suicide for ratings. Just more proof that Roddick is bad TV.

Can’t wait to see Roddick complain about the lighting at the FO this year. Or perhaps he will invent a new excuse for losing this year.

In any event, it will be priceless to witness.


Skeezerweezer Says:

Ok CB, I bit after this;

“Cindy_Brady Says:

NOT having Federer or Nadal in the final is suicide for ratings ”

Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hee Hee Hee….!!!!!

Oh wait…here is another one

“Don’t blame CBS, they realize how irrelevant Roddick’s win was because he beat a nobody in the final. They wanted to get it off the air as quickly as possible to boost TV ratings.”

Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Hee Hee Hee….!!!!

Excellent factual research data. You work for CBS? Wait… you must know someone at CBS? Did you also cover the Michael Jackson trial?

Can’t wait for your next post of significance excellence in intelligent life forms in the outer reaches of space….


Skorocel Says:

Dan Martin: „Chang, Noah and Rafter achieved less than YK on total and they are all 3 in the Hall of Fame.“

I wouldn’t be that sure about Chang. The guy maybe won only 1 slam (the FO 1989, of course), but played in 1 more major final than YK, won 8 more titles than YK, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, won 7 MS events (compared to 0 by YK). If my memory is correct, only Sampras (11), Nadal (15), Federer (16), and Agassi (17) won more MS events than Chang.


Eliza Says:

I’m not a Roddick hater, I’m a big fan. But I do think a Hall of Fame should only be for great players who prove it by winning more than one Slam. The French and Australian Open have both thrown up quite a few one off winners who have not been great players. They are One Slam Wonders until they can consolidate their wins- some could only play on one surface or got a dream run.

Also, it should be truly international if it’s about lauding the best, and charisma shouldn’t come into it. The fact that Kafelinikov wasn’t very likable is irrelevant, it’s whether his record was good enough.

I’m sure Roddick would have won more Slams if not for Federer ( although this is too much speculation, which you could do for all players). I think he’s got a better claim than Chang for H of F because of his numerous finals and semis – on grass and hard – and hopefully he will win another Slam. I’d certainly love to see him do so.


Cindy_Brady Says:

I still haven’t seen any rebuttals about Roddick’s stellar FO career or his inability to beat Federer at grand slams when other players of his generation have been able to. The truth speaks for itself.

Roddick has more excuses than Von has wrinkle cream cures.

A true Hall of Famer should at least be able to beat his chief rival in “one” big match of great importance somewhere in his career. Roddick hasn’t done it. Always, mentally gives in. Some hall of famer he is.

Yes, let’s continue lowering the “entrance bar” for the hall of fame. Let’s include all the players who almost beat Federer too. Guga K should be there ahead of Roddick. He won the French 3 times and was the last one to defeat Federer at the French, before Nadal.

See you all at Monte Carlo time.


David Says:

Cindy

If you can think of another player who almost beat Federer that got to No. 1 in the world, has reached 5 Slam finals, won 5 MS titles, been in the top 10 for almost a decade, will have won over 30 titles in his career (about triple what Rafter did), then I’d be happy to see him walk into the Hall of Fame too.

By the way, I can’t see any reason why Guga wouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame too.


Cindy_Brady Says:

David,

The Hall of fame should be a place for those players who achieved tennis immortality and greatness. Not a junkyard for players who were pretty good during their eras and were just top 10 players and won one slam and maybe were number one for a week. The hall should be of such stature that to be enshrined in it, it is an achievement of achievements. The mark of all time greatness. Not mediocrity!

Players like Ivan Lendl, Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Stephan Edberg, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Matts Wilander, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal.

Players who won multiple slams and slam dunked their competition.

I’m very comfortable with keeping the criteria high. For those eventually inducted in, it means that much more to them and the sport.

Keep the hall strong, don’t water it down.


David Says:

Cindy

You certainly have the right to your opinion and there’s no doubt that Roddick has played third fiddle, so to speak, to Federer and Nadal this decade.

You just have to acknowledge that the Hall of Fame you want would be different than that of any other Hall of Fame in any other sport.

I don’t know if you follow basketball, but I think a good comparison can be made between Roddick and someone like Karl Malone, who played for Utah in the 1990s. He is widely considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, power forwards in NBA history. It would be completely absurd for most basketball fans for someone to suggest that he shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. But because he played in Michael Jordan’s era and lost to the Chicago Bulls both times he made the NBA Finals he never won an NBA championship. Arguably he achieved less in his sport, certainly in terms of titles, than what Roddick has.


Cindy_Brady Says:

David,

Your comparison in using Karl Malone is retarded, He scored how many pts in the NBA? He did what thousands of other players did not.

And it’s a “team” sport….Your logic is lacking.

In the LPGA hall of fame, inductees must win a certain number of majors to be considered. Just because this decade only had two bonified hall of fame players in it, doesn’t justify putting the “also rans” in just because it seems like there should be more. The numbers don’t matter as much as the quality should.

Again, have another watered down drink. Seems like that’s where your taste is.


David Says:

Wow, I don’t think there’s anything I said that warrants such a classless response on your part.

Basketball is a team sport, but it’s also the most “individual” of the team sports, in that the championship team almost always has an MVP winner on it. You don’t win NBA titles with a collection of also rans. You win it with one phenomenal player like Malone and a strong supporting cast. Malone had that because he played alongside one of the greatest players ever (another guy who never won an NBA title) in John Stockton, yet in 10-15 years of playing together they were unable to win a championship, which is what the game is all about. And no doubt they would acknowledge that.


Michael Says:

Yes Andy Roddick proved to everyone as to how good a player he is.


John Says:

wow, after reading all this I’m upset to see some Andy haters. All of Cindy’s posts that I read seem so souless. I’m not sure as of yet wether Andy should be in the fall of fame. I think he will really need to do something extraordinary for people to believe he deserves to be among the greats. Maybe he will win Wimbledon this years.


Polo Says:

David and John, you are probably new here. But that is Cindy_Brady. Those who have been here for a while know her already. That is her style. We here have gotten so used to it that whatever she spews have lost their sting. You too will get used to it the longer you hand around here. There are many more bloggers here that make it interesting,informative and fun.

Enjoy!


John Says:

haha good to know, thanks.


David Says:

Thanks Polo

Yes, the vast majority of posters here seem to be respectful of others’ opinions. So I do plan on sticking around.


bojana Says:

I am not Roddick’s fan,I did not like what he said in the past.But he is very good tennis player and he was the best in Indian Wells and Miami.
Congratulation to him and to his fan’s.


SG Says:

I see Kafelnikov as a Hall of Famer. He wasn’t merely “really good”. The guy won 2 FO’s in an era with a lot of excellent claycourters. If you’re going to question Kafelnikov, why not question Kuerten. He had no results worth speaking of on grass or hardcourts. Same with Muster. And in my eyes, these are both Hall of Fame guys. You win a major and have a decent number of tour wins (say more than 15) and I think you’re in. Maybe the this should be done like the LPGA HoF. There aren’t any “questionables” in the LPGA HoF.


Ben Pronin Says:

I just feel like, with Chang and Noah already in, a lot of other players should easily get in. I can’t believe Kafelnikov is even up for debate. Roddick, Rafter, Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt, and plenty of others should be shoe-ins.

Top story: 2014 N. American Hardcourt Schedules: Where Will Federer, Nadal And Djokovic Be This Summer?
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Jul 21 WTA - Jul 21
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Rafael Nadal2 Na Li
3 Roger Federer3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 Tomas Berdych5 Agnieszka Radwanska
6 David Ferrer6 Maria Sharapova
7 Milos Raonic7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Juan Martin Del Potro8 Angelique Kerber
9 Grigor Dimitrov9 Jelena Jankovic
10 Andy Murray10 Victoria Azarenka
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.