Is that it for Roddick?

So he's had to retire injured.

Question is how much longer for Andy? Two QFs since his last Wimbledon loss to Federer in 2009 and turning 30 before the next US open. Must be in danger of now dropping out of the top 20 with no real return to form in sight.

If, and when, he does hang up his racket is he going to be considered the best player never to win at Wimbledon or has he still got one last shot at it?

The thing is that he wasn't playing badly before getting injured.

It's pretty unfortunate. It's clear however that he will never win another slam but should make a very decent living witeh teh remaining year on teh tour....if he stays injury free that is.

will he be able to make a decent living though? with his tour costs, will he earn enough? or wil the earnings come via sponsorships?

Best player never to win at Wimbledon - Lendl might have a claim on that I suggest, although I would accept that Lendl did not get as close to winning as Roddick did in either 2004 or 2009.

Roddick was particularly unlucky in 2004 when he was all over Fed who needed two chances to regain his composure during rain delays and came back from a set and then a break down to win.

you could also say Safin is in the running for best to not win W

Rather unfortunate for Roddick to get injured. He does love Tennis. As long as he is healthy and motivated, he should continue.

barrystar how about best grass court player never to win there then?

he is a good spokesman for tennis. he does not necessarily behave in an exemplary manner on court, but when he talks on tennis and for tennis, then he is a great ambassador. he spoke very well about the strike issue back in december.

You see, the thing is, if Roddick retires now, he will end up in the commentary room alongside Greg Rusedski. So I hope he keeps going for as long as possible.

newballs wrote:barrystar how about best grass court player never to win there then?

Hey, I know what you mean, he's definitely got a claim to be the "somethingest" not to win Wimbledon, just like Goran had until the 2001 miracle - it's just difficult to put your finger on exactly what the 'something' is and yours is a pretty decent suggestion for a 4-time winner at Queens. Poor old Ken Rosewall managed to lose 4 Wimbledon finals despite winning on grass at the Australian and US Opens.

I've always liked Roddick, he's basically an honest and bright character. His default position is pretty gracious, but I quite like that he bares his teeth and lets the mantle slip from time to time. He'd have had a 4-6 slam career were it not for Federer.

Roger Federer and Andy Roddick
2009 Wimbledon ............Final ....loses to Roger Federer ....5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14
2006 US Open ................Final ....loses to Roger Federer ....6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2005 Wimbledon ............Final ....loses to Roger Federer ....6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2004 Wimbledon ............Final ....loses to Roger Federer ....4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4

2009 Australian Open .....SF .......loses to Roger Federer ....6-2, 7-5, 7-5
2007 Australian Open .....SF .......loses to Roger Federer ....6-4, 6-0, 6-2
2003 Wimbledon ............SF .......loses to Roger Federer ....7-6(6), 6-3, 6-3

2007 US Open ...............QF .......loses to Roger Federer ....7-6(5), 7-6(4), 6-2


Note in all these matches Andy Roddick lost every single tie-breaker!

Are they still friends?

Roddick and Federer?
i think Federer has very few friends on tour. he does not strike me as the kind of guy to go out and have drinks with fellow tour members.

Roddick on the other hand is a different animal. i seem to recall he is good friends with Blake, Fish etc.

i think Roddick and Federer have a good liking for each other.

Yep....though I think Fed talk about a few players as friends. Going on hols with them is another thing but he seems pretty popular.

I feel that Fed is slightly more 'old before his age' than the rest of them to be a true drinking or holiday buddy, but you get the impression that he's pretty friendly with Roddick and many others.

When he has a scratchy relationship with someone it seems pretty obvious and I'd put Murray and Djokovic in that category.

I have to say when I saw him sunken by Murray in Paris, I had never seen his body language so de-moralising. I think if the conds don't change, he might not see the point in remaining in the game. I mean all his power strokes comeback at him, he is like a sitting duck on court. If he is off-form it is even worse to watch.

I hope he doesn't, but I am not sure how much more he will enjoy losing to lower ranked players.

legendkillar wrote:I have to say when I saw him sunken by Murray in Paris, I had never seen his body language so de-moralising. I think if the conds don't change, he might not see the point in remaining in the game. I mean all his power strokes comeback at him, he is like a sitting duck on court. If he is off-form it is even worse to watch.

I hope he doesn't, but I am not sure how much more he will enjoy losing to lower ranked players.

I said "Shanghai", but that was a big blooper - I'd forgotten this was about Roddick!!!

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I have to say when I saw him sunken by Murray in Paris, I had never seen his body language so de-moralising. I think if the conds don't change, he might not see the point in remaining in the game. I mean all his power strokes comeback at him, he is like a sitting duck on court. If he is off-form it is even worse to watch.

I hope he doesn't, but I am not sure how much more he will enjoy losing to lower ranked players.

I said "Shanghai", but that was a big blooper - I'd forgotten this was about Roddick!!!

newballs wrote:So he's had to retire injured.

Question is how much longer for Andy? Two QFs since his last Wimbledon loss to Federer in 2009 and turning 30 before the next US open. Must be in danger of now dropping out of the top 20 with no real return to form in sight.

If, and when, he does hang up his racket is he going to be considered the best player never to win at Wimbledon or has he still got one last shot at it?

I like Roddick's energy and zest for life. He's particulalry watchable when it comes to press conferences as he answers questions direct without (usually!!) being abrupt

However, never mind the best player never to win Wimbledon - crikey we may as well give a shout to Roscoe Tanner or Kevin Curren. For me he's one of the worst to win a Hard Court slam

barrystar wrote:

newballs wrote:barrystar how about best grass court player never to win there then?

He'd have had a 4-6 slam career were it not for Federer.

If this is the case, then this really ends the argument about the quality of the 2002 to 2006 'era'!!

For a while now I have thought that Roddick should seriously contemplate retirement. His slam efforts have not been that great in the last few years. I think his last throw of the dice was Wimbledon 2009 and if he was ever going to win that title it was then. He seems to be picking up injuries now which keeps him sidelined sometimes and at nearly 30 I cannot see him winning many more titles apart from say a few small US titles here and there.

I am not saying he should retire just because of a title drought. Federer is going through that too but in his case he makes the latter stages of tournaments unlike Roddick.

I think Roddick would have won much more had it not been for Federer in a way although he was only in a few slam finals and those happened to be against Fed. But I have always thought that apart from his serve, there was not a great deal about his game. If you returned his serve and got the ball into play you would have a good chance of winning the point.

He's not going to make it past the 3rd of any slams unless he lets loose on his forehand, which he aint done since 2009. Roddick's game has been a joke for a couple of years, but when he blisters his forehands like he used to he was easily able to make semi's and further on 3 of the 4 slams.

Lovely guy and i like him but unfortunately never had the quality of a great. And this was the same guy who was the main challenger to Federer in 2004/2005/2006. What an era!

This is a great summary of his limited game

"The game has
moved on. A rocket of a serve and a
huge forehand is now commonplace.
He's still a great athlete and a great
competitor but the weapons are not
as potent as they used to be"

Well the weapons were not exactly that potent either before. Just weak competition means he could thrieve .
Having said that, he was great at Wimbledon 2009 and gave away the match. Choked and a clear case of mental block against Federer

I suppose therefore it was a case of out choking the choker.

Roddick, great serve, not really great ground strokes. Lucky to have relatively easy competition in prime of his career, but when he did come up against super players like Federer, he nearly always lost.

At least Roddick was good enough to meet Federer on grass and HC when those conds were still fast.

Felt quite sorry for Roddick at Queen's last year (happy for Murray though ). Would be nice to see him have another crack at a big title - hasn't won a masters since 2010. Not sure I can see it happening though.

Nore Staat wrote:I suppose therefore it was a case of out choking the choker.

Tenez wrote:At least Roddick was good enough to meet Federer on grass and HC when those conds were still fast.

Yes his performance in Miami 2005 was superb.

Tenez wrote:At least Roddick was good enough to meet Federer on grass and HC when those conds were still fast.

And we're off !!

Not really, banb, not this time.
In one (his first) match on a fast hardcourt Nadal equalled all of Roddick's wins against Fed during his whole career.

The Fedal debate rages on nearly all the threads.

coolpixel wrote:you could also say Safin is in the running for best to not win W

Pat Rafter?

legendkillar wrote:The Fedal debate rages on nearly all the threads.

This isn't a Fedal debate.

I for one won't be sorry to see the back of Roddick. His game is boring and ugly, and he's a complete a**hole on court. The only enjoyable part about watching him play is watching a better player dismantle him.

Chazfazzer wrote:I for one won't be sorry to see the back of Roddick. His game is boring and ugly, and he's a complete a**hole on court. The only enjoyable part about watching him play is watching a better player dismantle him.

Sounds like he's not your favourite player then.

His game is "boring and ugly"? I'd go more for somewhat predictable and limited but, in its own unique way, entertaining enough. And that's probably why his time is nearly up. The game has moved on and Andy's probably had his day. I wouldn't begrudge him the chance though of a final swansong at Wimbledon doing a Goran however unlikely that is in reality.

His game is "boring and ugly"? I'd go more for somewhat predictable and limited but, in its own unique way, entertaining enough. And that's probably why his time is nearly up. The game has moved on and Andy's probably had his day. I wouldn't begrudge him the chance though of a final swansong at Wimbledon doing a Goran however unlikely that is in reality.

The bizarre thing I find about Roddick is that he seems to have little natural talent for the game, yet he's been (in comparison to 99.999% of people out there) phenomenally successful. It seems like his shots have been bodged together as he's gone along, almost like someone who's been fixing various turbos and superchargers to a Ford Fiesta to try and compete against their neighbour who owns a Ferrari. The way he hits his backhand slice, for instance, gives the impression of someone who's having to go through the stroke mechanic in their head as they're playing the shot, rather than simply stroking the ball naturally. I will commend Roddick for a number of things though:

- Despite the aforementioned limited talent, he really has done incredibly well.
- The way he's tried to improve his game, though misguided in some aspects (ie the nerfing of his forehand from a legitimate weapon down to a spinny, ineffective shot) shows a real desire to keep up with his competitors
- He's been involved in some memorable matches, mostly against the Fed

Ultimately though, the game is up. Turbocharging the tiny 1.4 litre's worth of talent that Roddick started off with is not enough anymore, and the likes of Djokovic, Murray and co. are blazing past. In this analogy, I think Federer is nicely represented by a Ford Shelby Mustang. Bit too old? Perhaps a high spec Nissan Skyline from the early 90s.

I see what you mean. His shots are not loose, Bh and FH very tight. He muscles the ball, which is typical of players not using much of their talent.

I suppose (using your analogy) Tim was a Mini Metro and Andy like my old Fiat - a notoriously sluggish starter and tempremental to boot.

Coming back to Roddick I think the writing was on the wall when he was still working on his volleying (never mind his backhand) to try and make it a strength rather than a liability when Stepanki stepped in a couple of years ago.

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The Fedal debate rages on nearly all the threads.

This isn't a Fedal debate.

cowpat!

I don't think the issue with Roddick was really the volleying, more the fact that he just mindlessly charged in on distinctly average approach shots to get picked off with ease by the better players. A lot of his approaches are hit nice and loopily, medium paced and not particularly well directed; basically, the dream shot to attack if you're a player adept at passing. Which most players are nowadays. Roddick could be John McEnroe at net for all the good it would do him in some of the situations he finds himself in at net. That said, Roddick is a poor volleyer, and lacks all the instinctive ability that comes naturally to the good volleyers; ie he seems to have little ability to read where a player will place a passing shot, and is often caught flat footed as a not particularly well hit pass zips by. His matches vs Federer at the Aussie Open in 2007 and Murray in Paris in 2011 spring to mind as good examples of the mindless net charges, though Roddick can be forgiven in these instances as he could never have won these matches regardless of what tactics he had used (short of placing sleeping pills in his opponent's drink bottle).

newballs wrote:I suppose (using your analogy) Tim was a Mini Metro and Andy like my old Fiat - a notoriously sluggish starter and tempremental to boot.

As long as he get there in the end

sorry carrieg4 but have to report that despite repeated servicing by Ivan the mechanic the faulty motor never did get fixed.

I feel that for any limitations, his game was viable until the conditions were radically changed. In another period the serve alone would have won him 2/3Wimbledons.

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:The Fedal debate rages on nearly all the threads.

This isn't a Fedal debate.

Despite some efforts.

I feel that for any limitations, his game was viable until the conditions were radically changed. In another period the serve alone would have won him 2/3Wimbledons.

Probably a good argument for slowing down the conditions. Nowadays you need more than just a serve, thank goodness.

newballs wrote:sorry carrieg4 but have to report that despite repeated servicing by Ivan the mechanic the faulty motor never did get fixed.

Give it time - Fiats take longer to mature and it has a few years left in it yet.

Chazfazzer wrote:

I feel that for any limitations, his game was viable until the conditions were radically changed. In another period the serve alone would have won him 2/3Wimbledons.

Probably a good argument for slowing down the conditions. Nowadays you need more than just a serve, thank goodness.

Pity to have a phenomenal shot neutered so the runners can always win. Just imagine if we had slow and fast courts?

Chazfazzer wrote:

I feel that for any limitations, his game was viable until the conditions were radically changed. In another period the serve alone would have won him 2/3Wimbledons.

Probably a good argument for slowing down the conditions. Nowadays you need more than just a serve, thank goodness.

You must be kidding. Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs. Did yuo watch last year's slams finals?

Chazfazzer wrote:

I feel that for any limitations, his game was viable until the conditions were radically changed. In another period the serve alone would have won him 2/3Wimbledons.

Probably a good argument for slowing down the conditions. Nowadays you need more than just a serve, thank goodness.

Yes, thank goodness for that. Nothing's more boring than just 1 min service games with 3 aces and one easy put away winner.