[Blog] What If? Andy Roddick's Career Without Roger Federer

[El Dude]

Read it and weep (for Andy).

 

[Fiero425]

Read it and weep (for Andy).

Like Agassi & Courier, I never cared for Andy! His endorsement about his MOJO was even more offensive than Agassi's who at least got his act together and won late! Roddick's best years were wasted by him and his "head" concerning his top rival, Roger Federer! Roger wasn't that much better, but knew what he had to do to win while Andy was muscling the ball around the court with little to no control! uzzled :nono :cover

 

[El Dude]

Roger wasn't that much better? I beg to differ. That would be like saying, "Rafa Nadal isn't that much better than David Ferrer"...roughly similar types of players, but a completely different order of ability.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One year an airline (Is it British Air?) ran an Ad saying Andy booked two seats for return even though only one for onward journey to Wimbledon. The second one was supposed to be for the trophy that he will be bringing back. :snicker

 

[the AntiPusher]

This is the equivalent of saying what would Satan :devil career would have been if there was no Jesus :angel:!

 

[mightyjeditribble]

One year an airline (Is it British Air?) ran an Ad saying Andy booked two seats for return even though only one for onward journey to Wimbledon. The second one was supposed to be for the trophy that he will be bringing back. :snicker

I know!! Think it was this American Express ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_OyxgN2ac

I guess it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but I remember thinking it quite cringe-worthy.

Must have been 2004 or 2005. If it was 2004, then apparently the campaign didn't go so well on the whole, as they also had Agassi, who pulled out of the tournament, and Venus, who lost in the second round.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/jun/29/advertising

At least Andy made the final.

 

[El Dude]

This is the equivalent of saying what would Satan :devil career would have been if there was no Jesus :angel:!

I was more thinking of Robin and Batman.

 

[Fiero425]

Roger wasn't that much better? I beg to differ. That would be like saying, "Rafa Nadal isn't that much better than David Ferrer"...roughly similar types of players, but a completely different order of ability.

Roger, Rafa, & Nole have that little extra that sets them apart from the rest of the tour! They're not unbeatable and have been close to losing matches in any round, which is why I say they aren't that much better! It's something intangible that keeps them winning while the also-rans find a way to lose! Remember Roger at Wimbledon in '09; even he said he would have lost that match against Roddick if he had closed out that 2nd set! Andy had multiple set points, never lost his serve until that last game in the 5th! Roger had no right taking that match, but we all cheered and gave him kudos instead of noting the massive choke of his competitor! I could go on, but you know this already! Fedalovic aren't GAWDs even though we've elevated them to that status! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, my brother, but I think that "little extra" is what separates the greats from the also-rans, and ends up being a huge difference.

Consider: David Nalbandian. Let's go back in time and imagine, for a moment. Born on the first day of the year, he finished 2001 at age 19, #47 in the world. In 2002, at age 20, he finished #12. Now imagine a 20-year old with Nalbandian's talent being #12 - who wouldn't think we have a future great on our hands? Or at least a multi-Slam winner? He reached the top 20 around the same age as Alexander Zverev, a player most of us (including myself) project to future greatness.

The point being: you never know. And the difference between Nalbandian and Federer isn't much in terms of talent, but massive in terms of mentality. In 2002, David finished the year #12 just before his 21st birthday; Roger finished the year #6, but older at 21 a four months before Nalbandian. One would think they would have similar careers, but now--15 years later--they are as different as Pete Sampras and Aaron Krickstein.

What a crazy game!

 

[mrzz]

I strongly disagree that there is just a "little extra". First, there is the statistical evidence: ok, give your best shot, list ALL the close matches that you think player D, F or N lost on details and because the opponent "choked". Take out all the titles they won in those occasions, and STILL they have a ton of titles to show for. And, of course, there is also the matches they actually lost on details (Wimbledon semi against Raonic comes to mind), but, ok, forget that either. This is called "selective memory".

To use an example El Dude gave above. Ferrer. Nice player, sure. Now go and search on youtube Ferrer´s highlights. Ok, there is the fanbase difference, but would you find the overload of absurd plays the big 3 guys have on record? You can find HOURS of absurd Federer plays on youtube... do you think some Berdych or Tsonga (mind you, I really like Tsonga) get close to this? Hell no. The difference is not small, it is huge.

[Edit] I was replying to Fiero´s post. El Dude´s reply used Nalbandian as an example, and I took a completely different approach. In Nalbandian´s case, which I consider an odd exception, I agree with the "little extra" remark. Fiero´s comment was much more general, hence my answer.

 

[isabelle]

same career probably

 

[El Dude]

I'm guessing you didn't read the article, isabelle. If so, why not offer some examples of which matches you think he would have lost? Sebastian Grosjean? Hewitt on grass? I'm pretty conservative and I still end up with 5 Slams total.

 

[isabelle]

I'm guessing you didn't read the article, isabelle. If so, why not offer some examples of which matches you think he would have lost? Sebastian Grosjean? Hewitt on grass? I'm pretty conservative and I still end up with 5 Slams total.

I've never believed in this story "without X or Y, W would have won..." X never stopped Y from winning this or that, Y wasn't able to win that's all. if not we could say Murray would have won AO without Nole, Federer would have won OG's gold without Murray....and so on but I don't agree at all

 

[mrzz]

^El Dude is not saying that he surely would have won... he is just analysing what could have happened, and trying to find what is more likely. Some cases are pretty simple. Of course he could have lost all the matches as well. He could have had an heart attack too... Off all the possible scenarios, same career is one, sure, but probably not the most likely one. Even if he had went on to win just one more, it would still double his account.

 

[El Dude]

mrzz has it right, isabelle. It is just a fun exercise of make-believe - don't take it too seriously.

But now that you bring up Andy Murray, he's a good example of a player who would have had an even more impressive year playing in a different context. Imagine if he had peaked in the late 90s to early 00s - he would have dominated, probably won 10 Slams.

 

[mrzz]

You know, I found this thread idea a very good one. Maybe you should generalize it, and see what would have happened to the whole field if Federer was absent (I kind of feel bad for giving suggestions of things I would like to see, as it seems so lazy and selfish, but anyway).

On the top of my head Nadal would have at least two more slams (out of the three lost finals), Djokovic maybe a few more(apart from the USOPEN final in 2007 there were a few important semis, RG 2011, Wimbledon 2012, and so many more. Murray would also benefit for sure. I guess this could be quite fun, in fact.

 

[isabelle]

mrzz has it right, isabelle. It is just a fun exercise of make-believe - don't take it too seriously.

But now that you bring up Andy Murray, he's a good example of a player who would have had an even more impressive year playing in a different context. Imagine if he had peaked in the late 90s to early 00s - he would have dominated, probably won 10 Slams.

no problem, I don't take it too seriously...in fact, we can only suppose....past won't come back so nobody knows what would have happened if...

 

[El Dude]

"We can only suppose" and "nobody knows what would have happened"...yes...BUT, my blog article tried to be as realistic and accurate as possible. That's where speculation becomes interesting.

Further, I don't think it was that hard to say that Andy would have won a few more Slams if Roger hadn't been around. Easier than, say, that Roger would have won 24-25 Slams if Rafa was a fisherman. I mean, if you look at the matchups, yes, Roger would have won two dozen Slams. But we don't know the degree to which Roger was positively impacted by Rafa's presence...maybe without him there he would have grown complacent and slacked off (don't think so, but who knows).

On the other hand, I just see no positives for Roddick with regards to Roger. He was just...damaged...by him.

 

[Tennis Miller]

I see Roddick like Goran. Each had one nemesis that prevented him from chalking up a few more GSs. Their games had flaws (Mainly Goran's head and Andy's BH), but they were both good enough to win a few more slams if their draws had been kind enough to knock out Fed and Pete a few more times before the finals.

Cheers
TM

 

[Fiero425]

I see Roddick like Goran. Each had one nemesis that prevented him from chalking up a few more GSs. Their games had flaws (Mainly Goran's head and Andy's BH), but they were both good enough to win a few more slams if their draws had been kind enough to knock out Fed and Pete a few more times before the finals.

Cheers
TM

I said the same about Nole and Roger; no one helped them out by completing upsets of Nadal at the FO for so many years! It was a gutless effort where no lead was safe; sometimes his opponents forgetting how to play the game at all in the crunch! Only Soderling and Djokovic have truly tested and beat him! That's sad IMO looking back at the effort of the "also-rans" of this era; truly pathetic, esp. his DC teammates! uzzled :nono :cover