Is that it for Roddick?

First topic message reminder :

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?

"Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs"

The odd arm or two might help as well?

newballs wrote:"Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs"

The odd arm or two might help as well?

Don't be silly only Federer has arms.

Don't be silly only Federer has arms.

And remarkably skinny ones at that!

well i guess there was a time when slam champions needed hairpieces too...

newballs wrote:"Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs"

The odd arm or two might help as well?

Sure but if you need 20 shots to pull a winner or an UE, arms don't play such a big role.

Tenez wrote:

newballs wrote:"Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs"

The odd arm or two might help as well?

Sure but if you need 20 shots to pull a winner or an UE, arms don't play such a big role.

This is all getting rather silly.

I mean without them how are you going to start the rally in the first place?

Arms are overrated in tennis. I usually grip the racquet between my legs; I find it's much more effective.

newballs wrote:

Tenez wrote:

newballs wrote:"Nowadays you just need a pair of legs and lungs"

The odd arm or two might help as well?

Sure but if you need 20 shots to pull a winner or an UE, arms don't play such a big role.

This is all getting rather silly.

I mean without them how are you going to start the rally in the first place?

Yep, as silly as saying It's like "winning with a serve only"....

Well one match doesn't mean much and he never did the best at the AO, maybe because it's slower than USO and Wimbledon.

Have seen all the top players live at the WTF. Roddick struck me as much less natural and elegant than the others, it's serve, practice and determination for me that gone him this far while players with oodles more natural talent like Gasquet don't have half the career.

At least he, critically, won US Open in 2003 otherwise his career would almost be a travesty in a way.

His career merits a Wimbledon for me. To go the equivalent of 7 sets against Roger Federer without losing your serve is a stunning achivement. He only his serve once in the whole match right at the end. He was so close to a deserved win.

The big moment was losing the second set tiebreaker (from 6-2 up to 6-8 lost) for a 2-0 lead and in particular a big volley missed at 6-5 in the breaker.

There are some parallels with Ivanisevic - see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A54070364 for more. I would still like to see one more Roddick run at the US Open or Wimbledon and I do believe it could happen, all the way to the final or the title a la Ivanisevic - but it's my heart that believes this. It's hard to really make that argument.

US Open or Wimbledon and I do believe it could happen, all the way to the final or the title a la Ivanisevic - but it's my heart that believes this. It's hard to really make that argument.

I would rate Roddick's chances of winning the US Open as practically zero. There are simply too many people that are far too good for him on a hard court now; the top guys can beat him just for fun. At Wimbledon his chances are slightly higher, though still very low. It would take a lot of off days from his opponents for him to really have a chance.

zero chance regardless the slam...and I m tempted to add regardless the TMS. This new generation coming is going to make things harder very soon.

We saw Feliciano Lopez beat Roddick very convincingly when we went to Wimbledon last year. Quite simply Roddick was completely flat-footed by comparison with the natural talent that Lopez appeared to be. It's only one match, but it did not look to me like the performance of a man with a ghost of a chance of winning a slam. Sampras had a few dismal losses in 2001-2002 before winning the USO, but Roddick is no Sampras.

Unfortunately Lopez's natural talent does not extend to being able to hit a backhand!

He's won a slam and been world No1. Personally I think that's overachieving for a guy with his talent.

If Roger Federer wasn't around, would Roddick be considered a legend in the game?

I don't know why everyone is so hard on Roddick. He's not the player he once was and conditions are obviously different to those he learnt his game for.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't know why everyone is so hard on Roddick. He's not the player he once was and conditions are obviously different to those he learnt his game for.

It's because of his negative attitude, look at Hewitt and Federer competing then look at Roddick who is the same age as them. He's quite rude and pathetic with the umpires on many occasions too which deepens the dislike.

I was referring more to him as a player than as a person. Has he been rude to the umpires this tournament? How is his attitude anymore negative than anyone elses?

How is his attitude anymore negative than anyone elses?

True, he has the same attitude as most of the players in the challenger tour, which is where he should be playing too!

His forehand used to be good if you look at older videos of him, blaming the conditions is such a cop-out.

I didn't entirely blame conditions, I even said he isn't what he was game wise. He was good enough to take sets off of Fed in grandslam finals when it was arguably harder to do. As for attitude well fair enough but I don't think its that bad most of the time and there's definitely worse.

Could you imagine if Federer didn't stop Roddick in their 3 Wimbledon finals? Roddick would just be unbearable, but I admit he played great in Wimbledon 09 and deserved to win the final, he was playing at a standard i'd never seen from him.

How would he have been unbearable? He would have won his slam then gone away eventually. That 09 final was terrible, Roddick playing well and Fed only able to serve and return but strangely unable to rally.

Because he is patronising and bitter.

I can imagine he would have been so bitter had he won.

Wimbledon 09 semi and final was the performance peak of his career wasn't it. He may have been no 1 before and won in a slam but the performance level in 09 was probaby higher.

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?

Nope, as he has only won 1 slam throughout his career. Someone like Ken Rosewall must be a better candidate for this infamous title as he has won more slams throughout his career with only Wimbledon being the one that has eluded him. Another candidate is of course Andy Murray's current coach, a certain Ivan Lendl who has 8 career slams to his name but not the one he claims to cherish the most the Wimbledon title.

I think he should call it a day. His serve isn't what it was and he can't hit a winner off the ground. No pace whatsoever on his ground strokes, it's almost hard to watch.