@@TheRafaelBond so the federer roddick 16-14 fifth set final was not one of the greatest finals ever? Buddy you may have been watching something that day but it definitely was not the wimbledon 09 final….
Such an incredible machine of mind and marvellous tecnique. And i liked also the way he used to express his joy at the end of matches, always moderate. Greetings from Rome Italy
2009 AO Fed actually played some of the best tennis technique wise Roger has ever produced, but Rafa had a miraculous performance in the final to edge him in 5
I think Federer crumbled under the pressure in that final. His first serve percentage was really poor and his backhand was eaten alive. Also so many breakpoints wasted. His confidence against Rafa in that period was really low, especially after losing that hard fought match on his 'home' turf Wimbledon.
@@ABC-ABC1234 Federer just came from a bout with mononucleosis, and even after he recovered, he was never the same Federer. His power and movement significantly dropped.
As much as we pile on Roddick, I'd argue that most of us that watch videos on YT wish we could be half the caliber of player he was to be no.1 in the world for 13 weeks, five GS finals appearances and one title, and over half of his career winning matches and tournaments at the clip of a top-10 player.
I agree. His footspeed and precision (combined with power) separated him from your standard servebot. I understand why people thought he would be Sampras’s successor in the early aughts. But he couldn’t grind, and the game evolved away from his strengths.
Roddick is a great player he just has the bad luck of having to contend with the big three for most of his career and before that Sampras and Agassi as well.
Agreed. Anyone who is in top 100 (let alone no.1) on the ATP rankings is far, far better than your average YT vid watcher. To paraphrase Scalibrine's quote, “Roddick is much, much closer to Federer then we are to him."
By this standard we'd have to praise every ATP player since 99.9% of us wish we were half as good as them. The fact is, Roddick played like a Bozo against Federer, and us being less than 1% the player he is doesn't change that.
@@JK-vc7ie I disagree he was great. Many people so if you take away his serve he’s not as good which I can see the Point in that. But of course he’s not gonna be as good if you take away one of the fundamental components of his game, that’s like saying if you take away Federer’s Forhand he’s not as good well of course he’s not. And also Roddick had a surprisingly good backhand he was able to rip it down the line pretty easily. In the beginning of his career it was not very good but it got better.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Roddick was good at timing. He came on the scene in 2000 when there was a vacuum at the top. He arrived just after the stars of the past and just before the stars of the future. Evidence? His US Open win was against Juan Carlos Ferrero. Masters series titles? Wins over Fish, Coria, Berdych, Nalbandian. He never won a title beating someone who was a grand slam winner. Plus, he's an a-hole.
@@travisbickle5279 oh sure Travis i do. Tsitsipas is my second favorite player born in the 90s. Unfortunately he has become more of a social media specialist than a grand slam threat. However, it is interesting that i've seen you point out repeatedly that Djokovic was so good he beat peak Fed 3-0 in 2008, yet Roddick beating him the following year is "not special"?
@TvRF there are just 3 stretches in Murray's career in which he held more than 9000 ranking points. Summer of 2013 when he held 2 grand slam titles. 2016 when he was the best player in the world and in the summer of 2009 when Roddick beat him at Wimby. Is it just me or are Djokovic-fans constantly taking offense when something positive is said about other players?
Roger looked way too serious/focused in this tournament than ever. Probably that's one of the reasons why he cried after losing in the final, it wasn't enough for him to beat Rafa.
Straight setting Roddick is still a beatdown. Federer was incredible at 2009AO. Only problem he had prior to Nadal was against prime Berdych. He DOUBLE BAGELED #8 del Potro in the QF!!! Federer was in his prime in this match and tournament at only 27 years old. He made 8 GS finals in a row from 2008FO to 2010AO, winning four of them and losing three of them in epic five setters. Just because he got whooped by Nadal in 3 of the finals on all surfaces doesn't mean that he wasn't in his prime during this time. His prime ended in 2010FO. Nadal's prime was better than Federer's prime. That's all there is to it.
I know Brad Gilbert coached Andy to his only major title win, but to this day i believe hes the biggest reason his game never improved from that point. Never working with him to improve the BH. Never working on court coverage. Just serve big and whip the FH. Connors actually got Andy playing his best all around tennis. Unfortunately by then he had to almost completely re-create his game at too old of age and nagging injuries piling up.
After the heartbreak of 2008 Federer reached all 4 finals in 2009 And lost two close finals at AO and US open nd won two legendary finals at FO and Wimbledon
Roddick faired better against Djokovic and Nadal in their primes than Federer against them in theirs, yet Roger outclassed Andy all throughout in his career.
Lmao. Roddick almost never faced prime Novak, and hardly Nadal either. Neither of them would truly be troubled by a serve bot in their respective primes
Roddick’s super quick action on the serve must’ve been impossible to read, I can’t think of another big server whose movement was so explosive. Fed’s ability to return Roddick’s serve (while hugging the baseline half the time!) is justifiably legendary. His ease with servebot’s in general is unparalleled. His ability to pick apart Roddick’s frantic ground game and Hail Mary net approaches, is less remarkable.
Roddick's ball was really hurt by the night conditions which dampen topspin. If you watch his match against Djokovic right before this that took place during the day, his forehand penetrated the court, unlike this match where it looped really slow and landed on the service line, giving Roger all the time in the world to load and attack it. It was so weak Roger was targeting it on the serve and hitting a lot of his dictating shots and winners off of it.
Who would’ve known how many slams Cilic would’ve won if not for the big 3. Who knows how many Murray would’ve if not for the big 3. Ruud would have 3 if not for Nadal, Djokovic and Alcaraz. Bad argument since it can be applied to anyone. There are several players today who would have had several slams if not for Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer. Tsitsipas would probably have several majors, as would Thiem, Medvedev, etc etc
@@mikemoggerson6651 Andy vs Roger H2H is 3-21. Andy vs Novak H2H is 5-4. Andy vs Rafa H2H is 3-7. Andy lost to RF in 8 Grand Slams; 4 Finals; 3 Semi-Finals; and 1 Quarter-Final. I don't think a player has denied another more titles than Roger denied Andy. Bad arguement.
Roddick thought it was going out, so didn't proceed. It's Roddick's fault though for not putting a racquet on it either way (knowing the challenge rules). It is a judgement call for the ump if the player could have touched the ball then the point should be replayed. In this case Roddick could have hit the ball, but anticipated it going wide and got the short end of the stick.
@@johnsmith1789 No. Since the call came after the ball passed him, there's no way the out call could have affected him. Even if he put a racket on it, it wouldn't have mattered - It'd only matter if he puts a racket on it and the ball goes back into play.
@@lukeattwood6187 That's the thing. Federer was every bit as good in 08-12 as he was in 04-07, perhaps even better. His competition just got way better.
Well I kind of agree..because along came nadal,who would quite often beat him!..but his most dominant season was 06.his forehand was peak during this time,but actually his backhand for better in latter years..he always had a excellent slice backhand
@@ryanmathewfriedman 2nd that, his bad approaches make it look like he has to lunge at every volley, as if he doesn't know what he's doing, when he surely does
Watching Andy against Roger is so frustrating. Love Andy the guy, but as a player tactically, he has to be one of the dumbest against Roger. I don't know why he decided to just rush the net after 3 shots after the first few meetings with Roger. Like as someone who plays at the net a lot Roddick is pretty average at net. Also his approach shots absolutely suck. Looking at his forehand here is shocking considering how much harder and flatter it used to be. He played Roger pretty close the first few times they played and then completely changed his approach and got crushed every time excluding 2 times at Miami where Roger seems to be pretty poor. In this match you can even see that most of the times his backhand is doing more damage as it is flatter. The times he had success was going hard and flat and not trying to rally. Another issue I have with Roddick is how he just started to be a pure baseliner from like 2008 onwards. I could see that working if we were an athletic player, but look at him cover the court. It looks pretty bad. He cannot defend. I believe he would a won several slams had he been more aggressive till the end of his career. Trying to grind it out from the baseline with spinny forehands or just rush the net with a piss poor approach is not something a top tennis player would do. I say all this because I was a fan but had to witness his game change into something so frustrating.
Yeah Roddick was not a great volleyer, I agree with you. But his backhand was such a big weakness, it left him vulnerable in the back of the court. It's pretty tough to win slams with a first serve and a forehand only... ask John Isner. I liked Roddick, but he just did not have enough in his arsenal like the big 3 (4 at this time).
@@darkeneydarkeney8092 I agree. But early in the first half of the 2000s he reached several finals when the game was still pretty fast and pushed Roger pretty hard. Then it just seems he gradually took power out of his forehand right as his backhand started to improve. It may have helped be a bit more consistent and maybe higher ranked but the moment he did that he stopped being a slam contender. That's all I think. He was obviously a flawed player but it just seems like he beat himself with tactics later on in his career especially against the Maestro.
I believe Andy doesn't have an arguement since he didn't play the ball. If he was "right there" then he could and should have played the ball back into the court, regardless of the call.
You hear OUT! and you stop trying to hit the ball. It affects what the players will do next, basically a subconscious impulse. Think about if someone in the crowd shouted OUT! That person would be kicked out and then the point would be replayed. IMO if a call is incorrectly made like in this case, then the point should be replayed, regardless who was in an advantageous position at the time. This is consistent and free from any opinion, so no side can feel cheated about it. But when a judge makes a decision based on their opinion, one of the players is always going to feel cheated.
@@lkjkhfggd Even junior players are tought from a very young age to always return the ball. The ball is even with Andy as the call is made. Therefore, it had ZERO affect on Andy's ability to hit the ball. Andy THOUGHT that the ball would be out so GAVE UP on the play. Because Andy did not make a play on the ball, it is considered a clean winner. Correct decision from the ump.
@@sean9267 The outcome of the incorrect call should not be based on the intent of either of the players, or for that matter any circumstance regarding that specific point. Whether or not Roddick thought the ball was going out is irrelevant. The ball was called out and that call was wrong. The outcome following such a situation should be consistent (the same outcome every time) and this consistent result should be free from any opinion. This is the most fair way to do it. A bad call by a judge is the same as a bad call by some spectator in the audience. The result should be replay the point.
The federer roddick rivalry, has got to be one of the most boring in tennis history, thank god djokovic and nadal emerged and created a trio of rivalries
Teenaged Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had a higher win rate against prime Fed than Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick. The fact a player who would have been borderline top 10 (in 2010s) like Roddick was consistently making it deep in slams was a testament to how weak the early and mid 2000s were, particularly before the Djokovic/Nadal/Murray gen started hitting the prime. Even players like Wawrinka, Cilic and Del Potro were very solid major winners as well. Roddick was NEVER very good…he just hit the scene in a very weak era. Almost like Ruud now
Weird post when Murray has one victory as a teenager over Federer (please point to what I may have missed) and Djokovic has none (again, please point to any victory I might not know about). I initially thought you were using "win rate" in a sly way, but the criteria presented doesn't even apply to Djoker, I believe, so I think you were just over eager to educate us all again about the "very weak era." Nadal, of course, is a different story, but it wouldn't be the first time that a Djokovic fan uses the Federer-Nadal dynamic to create misrepresentations when it comes to other players v Federer. Has Ruud won anything over a 250 yet? I might have missed that, too.
@@stijnhuijgen301 Oh I know; I've spoken to him before. He's just one of many who all make the same arguments. Federer's era was so weak that they have to resort to telling umpteen lies to make the case. I don't see too many "baby Alcaraz" comments coming from the Nolefamily, by the way. Maybe I've missed them? ;-)
@@mantaishere A lot of tennisfans nowadays are a bunch of hypocrites and salty trolls. The first thing many Nole fans said after his Wimbledon loss couple of weeks ago was: Novak is old, he made too many errors etc. But when Federer fans make the same excuse they call it BS. No one can deny Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are better competition than Hewitt, Roddick and Safin but that doesn't mean they were weak. Safin and Hewitt were beating Sampras as teenagers in USO finals for example. And Nadal played a big part of Federer's prime, so you can't exclude from the list of Fed's opposition.
@@stijnhuijgen301 Yes, but Sampras was old and washed up and a shadow of his former self, you see. Salt and hypocrisy amongst current fandom is par for the course these days, Fed fans included, and isn't really a new thing. Fed detractors have been arguing "weak era" since about 2006, if not earlier. I have had many a discussion with Djovak fans about this topic and they come up with the most absurd arguments as "evidence." Anyway, it remains to be seen how Djo-Alcaraz will pan out, but I feel quite certain that age arguments will only become entrenched should Alcaraz continue to win the BO5 matches in the match-up. From my perspective, Djo fans, for the most part, are fully cognizant of the fact that Fed in his mid-30s was, of course, at a disadvantage v peak Djoker, which is why they went to such absurd lengths to argue that not only was Fed unaffected by age, he was BETTER than ever, because it feeds the argument that Fed is a fraudulent ATG who can only manage a 4-set loss v Djoker when playing his absolute best tennis. This while arguing that Djoker had the toughest competition ever, heh. Agreed -- the sensibles amongst the Fed fans have argued merely that Fed's peers are/were not the mugs they have been made out to be. Look at the amount of sympathy JMDP (who I love) got for being perennially injured, when Safin and Hewitt were castigated for the same. I just don't take these Djo fans seriously. They have emotional problems, a lot of them, and they live vicariously through Djo even more than the old Fed fans did through Fed.
man i m sorry to say it but roddick was an incredibly mediocre player game wise, dunno why americans mostly overhype him so much, he s legit a servebot and nothing more, his fh is mediocre his bh is mediocre , his net game and touch are nothing special and neither was his return. the guy overachieved alot if anything
Bit harsh to judge him on this one, slower conditions and match up were brutal, was past his best by this point. That said he did beat Djokovic in the quicker day time conditions the match before this. Watch Roddick at Wimbledon 2004 for an example of how good he was, underrated player.
