Joined
·
182,153 Posts
okay i posted this on the menstennisforums as well but it might get a few more replies here.
which planet is he living on ???
from 2 weeks ago:
"With Federer's title, Andy Roddick inherits the Best Player Never to Have Won a Slam sash. Roddick, however, did himself proud on the green stuff. He was terrific for five matches and then, well, there's not much you can do when your opponent can hit every shot in the book and decides not to miss. ... "
and now onto this weeks laugh of the week
Last week you called Mark Philippoussis "a pretty one-dimensional player who battles impatience and has never been known as a strategic genius." I'd argue that this applies equally well to Andy Roddick. Roddick has two weapons: a serve and a forehand. He's not a great service returner, his backhand is suspect at times, he's sort of lost around the net, and he's prone to mental meltdowns. I'd argue that Philippoussis has at least as great a chance as Roddick to bag a Slam, if we limit the scope of argument to the next three years or so.
—Sandy Cash, Durham, N.C.
Just by virtue of having Brad Gilbert as a coach, Roddick has distanced himself from Philippoussis in the "strategically suspect" category. Roddick's serve and forehand are, unquestionably, the twin pillars of his game. But I think he competes better than most people think. You mention a propensity for "mental meltdowns," but with the exception of the match against Lleyton Hewitt two years ago at the U.S. Open, I can't think of too many losses that can be attributed to volatility or runaway emotions.
Your suggestion that Philippoussis might bag his first Slam before Roddick is legit. But I'd counter that Roddick is a superior athlete, has a healthier body, a more adaptable game, a better coach, and isn't as dependent on his titanic serve. No disrespect to Philippoussis, who did himself proud at Wimbledon and deserves credit more generally for having resurrected his game. But I just think Roddick -- in addition to being six years younger -- is a more likely player to string together seven straight wins.
As long as we're here, a quick question about Brad (Master of Puppets) Gilbert. The guy demands that Roddick lose the campy visors because they don't project an image of professionalism. But Gilbert is allowed out in public with that ridiculous floppy Metallica lid? Where's the "Justice for All" in that? Speaking of Roddick ...
Why is Andy Roddick placed in the same category as Roger Federer, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero? He hasn't won a Master Series tournament yet, let alone reached a Grand Slam final. And all his titles came in smaller events, where the fields were not impressive at all, except maybe for the last one, in which he beat Andre Agassi and Greg Rudeski. I like the guy, but all this pressure and hype seem to be going to his head and making it difficult for him to deliver.
—Allan, Exton, Pa.
We received a few questions on this, though I'm not sure if they were directing the question at me specifically or media coverage more generally. Surely, there is some old-fashioned red, white and blue American bias at work here. Roddick is the brightest American prospect, which counts for a lot, especially with the ATP Tour making its North American swing these next eight weeks. (We're guessing that Conan O'Brien won't be inviting Ferrero to his show anytime soon.) Yes, it would be nice if American fans could simply appreciate the tennis and root for players who didn't by accident of birth grow up in this country. But the reality is that it's not happening in the near future. And Roddick -- a Man Show-watching, movie-star-dating, backward-baseball-cap-wearing Steve Stiffler lookalike from Nebraska via Texas -- benefits immensely from this.
But apart from that, I think Roddick's tennis and his youth conspire to put him on the short list of stars. You're right that he's never won a Master Series event much less a Slam. But let's cast our lens a bit wider. The kid -- and he is a kid -- doesn't turn 21 until later this summer; yet he has reached the semis of two of the last three Slams, he's a solid top-five player, he's won on all surfaces, and he's tied the record for the fastest serve. There's no question that Roddick's real apotheosis doesn't come until he wins a Slam; he can't just create a stir with big serves and a hyper-visible coach. But outside the players you've mentioned, I'm not sure there's another pony I'd rather being playing.
======================================================
I'm pretty sure that dickhead won't be going anytime soon on to any TV chatshows in Spain either
:lol: :lol: :haha:
Plus I can think of a few better players yet to win a slam than bobblehead.
which planet is he living on ???
from 2 weeks ago:
"With Federer's title, Andy Roddick inherits the Best Player Never to Have Won a Slam sash. Roddick, however, did himself proud on the green stuff. He was terrific for five matches and then, well, there's not much you can do when your opponent can hit every shot in the book and decides not to miss. ... "
and now onto this weeks laugh of the week
Last week you called Mark Philippoussis "a pretty one-dimensional player who battles impatience and has never been known as a strategic genius." I'd argue that this applies equally well to Andy Roddick. Roddick has two weapons: a serve and a forehand. He's not a great service returner, his backhand is suspect at times, he's sort of lost around the net, and he's prone to mental meltdowns. I'd argue that Philippoussis has at least as great a chance as Roddick to bag a Slam, if we limit the scope of argument to the next three years or so.
—Sandy Cash, Durham, N.C.
Just by virtue of having Brad Gilbert as a coach, Roddick has distanced himself from Philippoussis in the "strategically suspect" category. Roddick's serve and forehand are, unquestionably, the twin pillars of his game. But I think he competes better than most people think. You mention a propensity for "mental meltdowns," but with the exception of the match against Lleyton Hewitt two years ago at the U.S. Open, I can't think of too many losses that can be attributed to volatility or runaway emotions.
Your suggestion that Philippoussis might bag his first Slam before Roddick is legit. But I'd counter that Roddick is a superior athlete, has a healthier body, a more adaptable game, a better coach, and isn't as dependent on his titanic serve. No disrespect to Philippoussis, who did himself proud at Wimbledon and deserves credit more generally for having resurrected his game. But I just think Roddick -- in addition to being six years younger -- is a more likely player to string together seven straight wins.
As long as we're here, a quick question about Brad (Master of Puppets) Gilbert. The guy demands that Roddick lose the campy visors because they don't project an image of professionalism. But Gilbert is allowed out in public with that ridiculous floppy Metallica lid? Where's the "Justice for All" in that? Speaking of Roddick ...
Why is Andy Roddick placed in the same category as Roger Federer, Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero? He hasn't won a Master Series tournament yet, let alone reached a Grand Slam final. And all his titles came in smaller events, where the fields were not impressive at all, except maybe for the last one, in which he beat Andre Agassi and Greg Rudeski. I like the guy, but all this pressure and hype seem to be going to his head and making it difficult for him to deliver.
—Allan, Exton, Pa.
We received a few questions on this, though I'm not sure if they were directing the question at me specifically or media coverage more generally. Surely, there is some old-fashioned red, white and blue American bias at work here. Roddick is the brightest American prospect, which counts for a lot, especially with the ATP Tour making its North American swing these next eight weeks. (We're guessing that Conan O'Brien won't be inviting Ferrero to his show anytime soon.) Yes, it would be nice if American fans could simply appreciate the tennis and root for players who didn't by accident of birth grow up in this country. But the reality is that it's not happening in the near future. And Roddick -- a Man Show-watching, movie-star-dating, backward-baseball-cap-wearing Steve Stiffler lookalike from Nebraska via Texas -- benefits immensely from this.
But apart from that, I think Roddick's tennis and his youth conspire to put him on the short list of stars. You're right that he's never won a Master Series event much less a Slam. But let's cast our lens a bit wider. The kid -- and he is a kid -- doesn't turn 21 until later this summer; yet he has reached the semis of two of the last three Slams, he's a solid top-five player, he's won on all surfaces, and he's tied the record for the fastest serve. There's no question that Roddick's real apotheosis doesn't come until he wins a Slam; he can't just create a stir with big serves and a hyper-visible coach. But outside the players you've mentioned, I'm not sure there's another pony I'd rather being playing.
======================================================
I'm pretty sure that dickhead won't be going anytime soon on to any TV chatshows in Spain either
:lol: :lol: :haha:Plus I can think of a few better players yet to win a slam than bobblehead.
