How Good Was Andy Roddick Actually? 

That's a bold strategy cotton! Let's see if it pays off for him!

Not so fast. A lot of players have replaced a mediocre backhand with a semi-OK backhand and gone on to play slightly the same. I'd recommend this strategy unreservedly.

3:19 He also replaced his risky forehand with a topspin overhead smash! Truly an innovator this roddick

Nalbandian really choked that 2 set lead there in 2003.

And he was world no 1

He got it in just in time!

5-4 vs the GOAT too

@@bernardwalker4282 yes, but can't blame him for that. his training was based on beating players during the Sampras era, which was ruled by serve and volley..it would just be so hard to undo or unlearn that after integrating those skills during his earlier years..

but his backhand was relatively quite poor and a source of a lot of points for good opponents. Roddick only has himself to blame there.

He accomplished what others couldn’t

well he had the priviledge and the misfortune to be there at fed s prime! and he suffered the consecuences

​@@huzcer yes, but would add that his earlier coaches did nothing to help there either. Gilbert focused so much on his net play only to have the courts slowed down immediately after. And that strategy really hurt his odds of beating Federer in any case.

​@@chrisf9156for me if roddick had adapted his game as he did under stefanki earlier, around 2006/2007/2008 I believe he would've won two more slams

The rain delays ruined his momentum against Fed

Plus one. I’ll never forget that day. I was 13 and couldn’t hold it in .

Great statement

Totally agree with that exhaustive analysis. He is very far from a One Slam Wonder. If it wasn't for his facing Federer he would have had maybe 6 Slams or so. Also no 1 spot and 5 Masters Titles. Roddick himself says that Medvedev is way better than he was but I'm not exactly sure why.

@@tobiasgoldman Different eras and different players with different court surfaces. I think what Roddick meant by saying that Medvedev is way better than him is that Medvedev has the potential to go further than Roddick ever did. Honestly, Medvedev and Roddick are two different types of players and I cannot emphasize enough that Roddick was robbed of all those major titles' runs because of the unforgiving Roger Federer in his prime years. Roddick's matchup and match compatibility against Federer were probably the worst you could ask for, kinda like Federer against Nadal. Like, Federer got so used to Roddick's game that I reckon that Federer literally read Roddick's shots and anticipated nearly 70-80% of them. And unfortunately, so did other players the more they faced Roddick. So yeah, Roddick is probably the unluckiest player of all time to have run into the said Federer with all of Federer's peak abilities during 2004-2007. Roddick honestly should've beaten Federer at the 2009 Wimbledon final but by that point you could see that Federer was hanging over Roddick's head although Roddick by then figured out finally how to beat Federer on that day plus Roddick's serve was just monstrous in that match. I'd argue that Medvedev's game definitely has the potential to further Roddick's accomplishments because one of Roddick's main weapons, his forehand, clearly declined starting in 2004 after splitting with Brad Gilbert. Roddick couldn't hit flat forehands with heavy topspin as often as he could like in 2003 US open, although his fitness in 2009 was much better than his previous years and his backhand also improved in that season. Roddick's prime forehand was like some baseball batting, it's ridiculous how good his forehand was. It was more talked about than Federer's forehand before Federer had a dominant 2004 season. Medvedev's game is also more sustainable and better suited to playing long 5-set matches unlike Roddick, who relied hugely on his serve but that got well-exploited by his opponents throughout the match because of the predictable trajectory, like Phillip Kohlschreiber at 2008 AO. Medvedev is actually crazy smart for orchestrating his game by adapting it to different styles, be it aggressive baseliner or pusher or counterpuncher, add to that the depth in his shots with hilariously annoying flat trajectory and pace that gives his opponents nothing to work with. The problem is that he doesn't really have a finishing weapon, and I think he couldn't finish the business against Sinner at the AO final this year, it was a burnout.

djokovic is still going strong lol

Same, I grew up in this era and miss it so much 😢

and probably the worst backhand ever to make it to world no.1

True

612-213 (74.2%) is not a bad record to retire on…

should have worked on that really terrible backhand instead tbh

“Dont care if Novak”…..💩💩💩💩💩💩💩

612-213 (74.2%) is an absurdly good record to retire on.

How is he an overachiever ?

Anyone would have done better in any era. Sampras probably has a similar career than Roddick if he plays in that era. Think if Roddick plays in the 90s he'd be something more than a Jim Courier but less than an Agassi.

@@commodorezero hmmm, I am not sure, Sampras in some ways has a similar game to Fed - I think they may have shared the spoils with Fed if they had both played at the same time. If you put Roddick in the previous era, he wins less for me, if you put him in the next era he wins less for me. But saying that so does Fed. To be fair though its pretty difficult to say.

@@aktolman Not saying Roddick is better than Sampras but that Sampras would have similar success in the Big 3 era especially given he'd also be mostly done in his late 20s. Not that Roddick would have Sampras's career in the 90s.

@@commodorezero Yeah I agree mate! It's difficult to get a good idea though, as things have changed so much year on year, the size of their teams, the level of training and professionalism etc. And the margins are just so slight. What I would not give for Roddicks serve though, that would set things straight in the local singles league ha ha

@@aktolmanNot sure I’d call having to face prime Roger a weak era. I’d prefer facing Roger after 2008, when he began to slowly but steadily slow down.

By todays standards and the standards of other sports yes historically no. 30 is more or less the typical age tennis stars retire.

Even by today’s standards not really. Most players are a complete shadow of themselves by the time they hit their 30s. The big 3 are 1) freaks, not the norm, & 2) were aided by an extremely weak ATP tour for the last 8ish years.

It is arguable though, there are way too many factors to consider to ever decide on 1 person

😂 I love the fact that we can complete the F word with two possible options

his low quality backhand was his biggest issue by far

the quality (lack of obviously) of Roddick's backhand was not luck.

Boooo

nope. he was lucky to get 1 slam with that backhand.

Lucky guy. He isnt as consistent as zverev or stef. These kids already have won as many big titles as andy already.

@@gurukbut no grandslams m8.

his really poor backhand wasn't unlucky

Blame the big 3 😁

@@malcolmnorman5694 yes more blame Federer hahahahaha

@@federicotown8052 cant argue with you there

lol

blame his backhand.

he was a good player, but he had many chances and losses not under the hands of Roger or Rafa, Rafa didnt start winning in other majors other than French, til 2008.. I think regardless of era, that's his most potential, 2 Slams maybe at the most.

tbh, the quality of his backhand was on him, whatever the era.

Tbh he wasnt consistent. Zverev stef and thiem are better players than him. He wud have 0 slams in 2010 to 2020 eecade

@@gurukWasn’t consistent? He was in the top 10 for over a decade straight, & made at least 1 major QF every year. 5 major finals & a few other semis lost to his kryptonite Federer. The 3 you listed can’t go 3 majors in a row without losing early.

sure, sure

Nice one hahahaah

no

Thanks, I needed that laugh today

agreed. definitely better than Mirka Federer

Yeah top 10 for a decade straight is “not that good really”