Roddick on 29 wins
Patrick Kehoe
where to edge near to the top 10 all time... but 30+ wins is the
marker for a really top flight career on the ATP tour... Roddick, of
course, has the one slam at the 2003 USO and was #1 in the world, the
second youngest ever to do so... so, all in all, it's been a great
career, and very close to what could have been a monster career...
P
TT
Muster is 10th(1972-) with 44 titles.
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Patrick Kehoe
Yes... as I said 40 edges you toward top 10 all time...
P
TT
Missed that, my bad.
TT
> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 10:25 am, TT <do...@email.me> wrote:
>>> Patrick Kehoe wrote:
>>>> Next win for Roddick puts him into the 30 win club... 40 win club is
>>>> where to edge near to the top 10 all time... but 30+ wins is the
>>>> marker for a really top flight career on the ATP tour... Roddick, of
>>>> course, has the one slam at the 2003 USO and was #1 in the world, the
>>>> second youngest ever to do so... so, all in all, it's been a great
>>>> career, and very close to what could have been a monster career...
>>>> P
>>> Muster is 10th(1972-) with 44 titles.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
>>> life God will give you blood to drink"
>>> -Sarah Good, 1692
>>
>> Yes... as I said 40 edges you toward top 10 all time...
>>
>> P
>
> Missed that, my bad.
>
...but it's still not "all time"...
Inglourious Basterd
Roddick could have had a great career were it not for one man.
Patrick Kehoe
Roddick is my early, early, early pick for Wimbledon
2011... :)))))))))))
P
bob
had roddick won 09 Wimbledon to go with his USO and 30 wins, he'd have
had a decent career.
bob
Yama
: On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Kehoe
I think USO and #1 and near decade in top 10 is pretty decent career already...
bob
but he didn't maximize his potential. sneaking away with the 09
Wimbledon would've given him a much much higher place in history and
almost made up for it.
bob
Yama
: but he didn't maximize his potential. sneaking away with the 09
: Wimbledon would've given him a much much higher place in history and
: almost made up for it.
That was a great opportunity, sure (unlike most others where he really had
pretty much no chance), but already he has nice Chang-level legacy, and
nobody really calls him "One-Slam wonder", he's well above Johansson/Costa types.
john
"bob" <stei...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rcaad6570m79ma4ol...@4ax.com...
Tell us bob beside his good serve what other part of game he failed to
maximize.
He had a very average return game and probably the poorest in the top 10 and
an
improving backhand but still weaker than Federer's single hander.
>
> bob
MBDunc
> > Muster is 10th(1972-) with 44 titles.
>
> > --
> > "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> > life God will give you blood to drink"
> > -Sarah Good, 1692
>
> Yes... as I said 40 edges you toward top 10 all time...
>
> P
Most titles with only one slam win (open era):
Muster 44
Orantes 34
Chang 34
Roddick 29
Gerulaitis 27
Most titles with no slam win (open era)
Tom Okker 31
Brian Goddfried 25
Eddie Dibbs 22
Harold Solomon 22
Brad Gilbert 20
This list is heavily dominated by 70:ies players as there was at max
double the number of tournaments annually compared to today.
.mikko
Patrick Kehoe
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:04:59 +0000 (UTC), Yama
>
> <tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:
Try and see the positives in life sometimes bob, do try...
P
Patrick Kehoe
> On 5 marras, 19:45, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Muster is 10th(1972-) with 44 titles.
>
> > > --
> > > "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
> > > life God will give you blood to drink"
> > > -Sarah Good, 1692
>
> > Yes... as I said 40 edges you toward top 10 all time...
>
> > P
>
> Most titles with only one slam win (open era):
>
> Muster 44
> Orantes 34
> Chang 34
> Roddick 29
> Gerulaitis 27
>
This list is a very interesting/revealing one...
P
Inglourious Basterd
if you were bob, it would be hard to be positive....:)
Sakari Lund
<tj...@NOSPAMpajuoulu.fi> wrote:
>bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
>: but he didn't maximize his potential. sneaking away with the 09
>: Wimbledon would've given him a much much higher place in history and
>: almost made up for it.
>
>That was a great opportunity, sure (unlike most others where he really had
>pretty much no chance)
But it evens out because he was extremely lucky to win USO 03.
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 5 marras, 19:45, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> > Muster is 10th(1972-) with 44 titles.
>>
>> > --
>> > "I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
>> > life God will give you blood to drink"
>> > -Sarah Good, 1692
>>
>> Yes... as I said 40 edges you toward top 10 all time...
>>
>> P
>
>Most titles with only one slam win (open era):
>
>Muster 44
>Orantes 34
>Chang 34
>Roddick 29
>Gerulaitis 27
>
>Most titles with no slam win (open era)
>
>Tom Okker 31
>Brian Goddfried 25
>Eddie Dibbs 22
>Harold Solomon 22
>Brad Gilbert 20
well i'm glad to see roddick won that USO to separate himself from the
Okkers and Solomons...
bob
bob
wrote:
he failed to maximize his net game and BH, but mostly his entire game
was not maximized due to a very lax effort in his early yrs. shame.
bob
bob
are you nuts?
bob
john
To be honest he is in the same era as one of the greatest player in history
of the game, he is
less talented compare to him. The move to slow down the speed of the court
and using
different balls were very kind to Roddick. He was bought up on hard court
and there
wasn't much thinking in his game except to bash the ball as hard as he could
and he was
taught to come to the net which weren't not by his own instinct. He looked
like he had
a game with unlimited potential but in reality his talent was pretty much
maximized and he failed
to achieved the height that you and Whisper believe he could because he was
taught to play a
limited game purely base on powerful serve and forehand.
>
> bob
TT
It is? What is it revealing then?
Whisper
>
> To be honest he is in the same era as one of the greatest player in history
> of the game, he is
> less talented compare to him. The move to slow down the speed of the court
> and using
> different balls were very kind to Roddick. He was bought up on hard court
> and there
> wasn't much thinking in his game except to bash the ball as hard as he could
> and he was
> taught to come to the net which weren't not by his own instinct. He looked
> like he had
> a game with unlimited potential but in reality his talent was pretty much
> maximized and he failed
> to achieved the height that you and Whisper believe he could because he was
> taught to play a
> limited game purely base on powerful serve and forehand.
>>
>> bob
>
>
Yes, but that 'limited' game would have won Roddick 7-12 slams if Fed
never existed. Proves how weak this era is.
TT
This era?
#1 and #4 have a leading h2h against a player who won 16 slams...hardly
a weak era.
john
"Whisper" <beav...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4bednWLBV9CHw0vR...@westnet.com.au...
would he ? well his record against Hewitt was at one stage 1:7 and hardly
suggest
he was going to win 7-12 slams and also the problem is Fed existed.
>
bob
wrote:
i think the 04 Wimbledon shocked roddick. he thought he was going to
win, and learned that federer was at that time flat out a better
player than he was.
the criticism i have of roddick not maximizing potential goes into his
entire approach, effort, focus, dedication from say 2002-2006. his
effort was extremely weak for any top level pro - he wa already
popular, on MTV, rich/famous, and "livin the life." he wasn't gonig
through the intense single minded dedication of a federer or sampras
type, with goal on maximizing their game. THAT was where the
opportunity was lost, and it is undeniable.
bob
john
If you look at his whole game then you will realize despite all the hype he
was generating
he wasn't as talented as Federer and wasn't mentally as tough as Hewitt
(before Hewitt went
down hills after 2005). Anyone with some knowledge of the game spot the
deficiencies in
Roddick's game much earlier than you and Whisper did. Good work ethic can
only take you
as far as your talent permit Roddick just does not have the talent of
Federer and Federer almost
read his game like a book because of Roddick's lack of variety in his game.
>
> bob
Whisper
Doesn't negate what I said. Take Fed out & Roddick would have 7-12
slams despite 1 dimensional game. That tells us the quality of field is
shite.
john
Compare that to Sampras' field that had Kafelnikov as No.1 who was
completely
owned by Hewitt who was only 18 at the time when Kaf was already an
established
grand slam champion, Muster as No.1 was owned by even a near retiring
Edberg.
That tell us a lot more about the quality of the field in Sampras era. Even
more telling
was blokes like No.200 was in Wimbledon semi and Washington was one match
from
winning Wimbledon.
>
>
Whisper
>>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't negate what I said. Take Fed out& Roddick would have 7-12 slams
>> despite 1 dimensional game. That tells us the quality of field is shite.
>
> Compare that to Sampras' field that had Kafelnikov as No.1 who was
> completely
> owned by Hewitt who was only 18 at the time when Kaf was already an
> established
> grand slam champion, Muster as No.1 was owned by even a near retiring
> Edberg.
> That tell us a lot more about the quality of the field in Sampras era. Even
> more telling
> was blokes like No.200 was in Wimbledon semi and Washington was one match
> from
> winning Wimbledon.
>>
>>
>
>
er, Del Potro actually won UO beating Fed & Rafa - hello. That guy is
one of the biggest clowns I've seen. 1-dimensional dork, & equivalent
of somebody like Mark Rosset - & that's being kind.
Superdave
Somehow why does Galo Blanco come to mind at this moment?
john
Is he bigger clown than Yzaga, Gudenzi, Schaler, Medvedev, Phillipousis.
If we follow through your argument that Roddick with his talent was unlucky
not to win 7-12 slams because of Federer and suggesting it is a poor quality
field then it further strengthen the argument Sampras' era was very weak.
Agassi
without Sampras could probably get to 20+ slams.
>
>
john
"Superdave" <the.big.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h0sfd61sva5tkql93...@4ax.com...
No Galo was one of the best clay court giant in Sampras era and it was
unfortunate
Galo is not playing in the current era otherwise Whisper's unique visual
analysis skill
would have the guy as a potential grand slam winner.
Ted S.
> Anyone with some knowledge of the game spot the deficiencies in
> Roddick's game much earlier than you and Whisper did. Good work
> ethic can only take you as far as your talent permit Roddick just
> does not have the talent of Federer and Federer almost read his game
> like a book because of Roddick's lack of variety in his game.
I don't think he had the best ethic, anyway. It seemed to me as if he
was standing on court admiring his big serves instead of preparing for
the next shot, which is why anybody who could consistently put them back
into play could beat him.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
drew
>
> Doesn't negate what I said. Take Fed out & Roddick would have 7-12
> slams despite 1 dimensional game. That tells us the quality of field is
> shite.
A few years ago Roddick was "Sampras on steroids". You had him
winning
everything multiple times.
Tier one analysis?
Or maybe he is a great player...just not up to the standard of Nadal
and Federer.
drew
> the criticism i have of roddick not maximizing potential goes into his
> entire approach, effort, focus, dedication from say 2002-2006.
He's worked very hard in the last few years. If he had been as
talented as
so many had hoped and believed, the results would have followed.
He's a great player but he has some weaknesses and he hasn't managed
to
improve his game enough to win more majors.
john
"Ted S." <tedst...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:1ppwuogaskrup$.dlg@tedstennis.tripod.com...
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:21:51 +1100, john wrote:
>
>> Anyone with some knowledge of the game spot the deficiencies in
>> Roddick's game much earlier than you and Whisper did. Good work
>> ethic can only take you as far as your talent permit Roddick just
>> does not have the talent of Federer and Federer almost read his game
>> like a book because of Roddick's lack of variety in his game.
>
> I don't think he had the best ethic, anyway. It seemed to me as if he
> was standing on court admiring his big serves instead of preparing for
> the next shot, which is why anybody who could consistently put them back
> into play could beat him.
If anybody could put that serve back consistently and able to put him then
Roddick would
not be in the top 10 for the last 7-8 years. The guy did work pretty hard
to overcome
deficiencies in his game and adding more tools but there are two guys just
flat out better
than him.
bob
wrote:
yes, and that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow.
bob
bob
wrote:
>
>"Ted S." <tedst...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>news:1ppwuogaskrup$.dlg@tedstennis.tripod.com...
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 22:21:51 +1100, john wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone with some knowledge of the game spot the deficiencies in
>>> Roddick's game much earlier than you and Whisper did. Good work
>>> ethic can only take you as far as your talent permit Roddick just
>>> does not have the talent of Federer and Federer almost read his game
>>> like a book because of Roddick's lack of variety in his game.
>>
>> I don't think he had the best ethic, anyway. It seemed to me as if he
>> was standing on court admiring his big serves instead of preparing for
>> the next shot, which is why anybody who could consistently put them back
>> into play could beat him.
>
>If anybody could put that serve back consistently and able to put him then
>Roddick would
>not be in the top 10 for the last 7-8 years. The guy did work pretty hard
>to overcome
>deficiencies in his game and adding more tools but there are two guys just
>flat out better
>than him.
agree- although roddick could've been much better if had anywhere near
the dedication/effort/focus of most top pros.
see john, for once we're not disagreeing. you're catching on.
bob
MBDunc
> yes, and that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
> was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow.
Sounds like Agassi 1987-1993 (pre-Gilbert). In addition Agassi was
also unfit, at times 1/4 arsed and extremely star-starved in
comparision. "how can man make FO final with just cocacola and
hamburgers" - FO 1990 quote from French journalist who followed
Agassi. Of course he did not know about the wig...
Of course Agassi still won Wimbledon, had three other GS finals and
won YEC that period....
.mikko
bob
i think when agassi did focus though - he focused. andhe trained.
roddick was mentally weak and just started to give it all as he
matured. and yes, he made and almost won a wim final. now he's getting
too old.
bob
MBDunc
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:53:48 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>
> >On 9 marras, 01:15, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> yes, and that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
> >> was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow.
>
> >Sounds like Agassi 1987-1993 (pre-Gilbert). In addition Agassi was
> >also unfit, at times 1/4 arsed and extremely star-starved in
> >comparision. "how can man make FO final with just cocacola and
> >hamburgers" - FO 1990 quote from French journalist who followed
> >Agassi. Of course he did not know about the wig...
>
> >Of course Agassi still won Wimbledon, had three other GS finals and
> >won YEC that period....
>
> i think when agassi did focus though - he focused.
...yeah...more worried about his wig status rather than FO final. Also
Agassi played only 2 of the slams 1988-1990 (and continued to skip AO
until 1995). Some focus and dedication out there...
> and he trained.
..you do not remember extra spare tire Agassi weared at occasions
(like extra 15lbs at Wimb 1993).
> roddick was mentally weak and just started to give it all as he
> matured.
At some point Agassi was 0-5 with his 5-setters and of course lost his
3 first slam finals.
.mikko
Ted S.
> If anybody could put that serve back consistently and able to put him
> then Roddick would not be in the top 10 for the last 7-8 years.
That's the thing. He was getting a lot of free points on serve; enough
that he could stand there looking as though he was having an orgasm
admiring his big serves while the women in the stands swooned.
OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but note that when Roddick plays Federer,
it's consistently Federer who winds up with more aces, despite Roddick's
supposedly big serve. And Roddick has something like a 2-19 record
against Federer. There's more to serving than just MPH.
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 10 marras, 01:58, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 21:53:48 -0800 (PST), MBDunc
>>
>> <micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>> >On 9 marras, 01:15, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> yes, and that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
>> >> was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow.
>>
>> >Sounds like Agassi 1987-1993 (pre-Gilbert). In addition Agassi was
>> >also unfit, at times 1/4 arsed and extremely star-starved in
>> >comparision. "how can man make FO final with just cocacola and
>> >hamburgers" - FO 1990 quote from French journalist who followed
>> >Agassi. Of course he did not know about the wig...
>>
>> >Of course Agassi still won Wimbledon, had three other GS finals and
>> >won YEC that period....
>>
>> i think when agassi did focus though - he focused.
>
>...yeah...more worried about his wig status rather than FO final. Also
>Agassi played only 2 of the slams 1988-1990 (and continued to skip AO
>until 1995). Some focus and dedication out there...
>
>> and he trained.
>
>..you do not remember extra spare tire Agassi weared at occasions
>(like extra 15lbs at Wimb 1993).
agassi had a spare tire at times, and at other long stretches was by
far the fittest guy on tour. your pt??
>> roddick was mentally weak and just started to give it all as he
>> matured.
>
>At some point Agassi was 0-5 with his 5-setters and of course lost his
>3 first slam finals.
what does this have to do with agassi? the simple pt i made with
roddick, which you somehow tried to relate to agassi, was that when he
was young and formative, he didn't focus, concentrate, dedicate,
train, and give his all to becoming the best tennis player he could
be. and for that, he never fully recovered. he had a good career, but
not the career he could've had. last couple yrs, he tries to salvage
it - oops, too late.
now read into that anything you want, it's pretty well fact.
bob
MBDunc
> >..you do not remember extra spare tire Agassi weared at occasions
> >(like extra 15lbs at Wimb 1993).
>
> agassi had a spare tire at times, and at other long stretches was by
> far the fittest guy on tour. your pt??
Not 1987-1993 I was referring to.
> >At some point Agassi was 0-5 with his 5-setters and of course lost his
> >3 first slam finals.
>
> what does this have to do with agassi? the simple pt i made with
> roddick, which you somehow tried to relate to agassi, was that when he
> was young and formative, he didn't focus, concentrate, dedicate,
> train, and give his all to becoming the best tennis player he could
> be. and for that, he never fully recovered. he had a good career, but
> not the career he could've had. last couple yrs, he tries to salvage
> it - oops, too late.
I was referring to this post of yours which had a line "yes, and
that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow." (bob about
Roddick).
I then showed that it is nothing unusual nor tells nothing about field/
quality as Agassi did same around late80:ies-early90:ies.. (also I
won't buy Roddick's lazyness).
.mikko
Fan
> Next win for Roddick puts him into the 30 win club... 40 win club is
> where to edge near to the top 10 all time... but 30+ wins is the
> marker for a really top flight career on the ATP tour... Roddick, of
> course, has the one slam at the 2003 USO and was #1 in the world, the
> second youngest ever to do so... so, all in all, it's been a great
> career, and very close to what could have been a monster career...
>
It cost him many matches he should have won. Thinking that a call
unjustly went against him he would lose the match just to show how
unfair everyone is to him.
Hawk-Eye saved him because he would be in the nut house thinking that
every linesman and referee is out to get him.
bob
<mich...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>On 11 marras, 02:49, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >..you do not remember extra spare tire Agassi weared at occasions
>> >(like extra 15lbs at Wimb 1993).
>>
>> agassi had a spare tire at times, and at other long stretches was by
>> far the fittest guy on tour. your pt??
>
>Not 1987-1993 I was referring to.
>
>> >At some point Agassi was 0-5 with his 5-setters and of course lost his
>> >3 first slam finals.
>>
>> what does this have to do with agassi? the simple pt i made with
>> roddick, which you somehow tried to relate to agassi, was that when he
>> was young and formative, he didn't focus, concentrate, dedicate,
>> train, and give his all to becoming the best tennis player he could
>> be. and for that, he never fully recovered. he had a good career, but
>> not the career he could've had. last couple yrs, he tries to salvage
>> it - oops, too late.
>
>I was referring to this post of yours which had a line "yes, and
>that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
>was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow." (bob about
>Roddick).
yes, i stand by that.
>I then showed that it is nothing unusual nor tells nothing about field/
>quality as Agassi did same around late80:ies-early90:ies.. (also I
>won't buy Roddick's lazyness).
i don't agree that agassi was the same as roddick. agassi focused in
spurts, even while young, but then didn't; roddick never did.
bob
MBDunc
> >I was referring to this post of yours which had a line "yes, and
> >that's really to the pt: a lazy, 1/2 arsed, star-starved guy
> >was able to make multiple slam finals VS that field. wow." (bob about
> >Roddick).
>
> yes, i stand by that.
>
> >I then showed that it is nothing unusual nor tells nothing about field/
> >quality as Agassi did same around late80:ies-early90:ies.. (also I
> >won't buy Roddick's lazyness).
>
> i don't agree that agassi was the same as roddick. agassi focused in
> spurts, even while young, but then didn't; roddick never did.
Roddick did. Several times: Remember that he even hired Connors 2006
(Roddick then played very good US06 - AO07 but then got totally
deflated by Fed at AO SF).
.mikko
bob
hiring connors doesn't say squat about it - but by then it was too
late anyway. he really really gave it his all last 2 yrs, and had some
spurts of good results there too. but way too late. roddick - agassi
is apples and cumquats.
bob