Roddick falls from Top 10

[AustinHoya03]

sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2515122

A temporary setback, or is Andy gonna end up like Marcelo Rios?

Perhaps a more pertinent question is: does anyone (besides me) even care?

[RDF]

Roddick is type of "star" tennis needs to get away from in this country--he's someone who doesn't rise to occasion and yet claimed celebrity for what? Andres Gomez won a friggin Major too and so did Michael Chang--who I found far more entertaining as a player. Roddick is just not enjoyable to watch for me as a fan and I like Nadal's style on court and admire Federer's talent, but it's pretty sad when only American I really would sit and watch is a soon to be retired Andre Agassi--because he has more game then Roddick, Blake, and Mardy Fish--nobody with that name will be a great athlete--sorry it's just not possible. Now if you said stand up comic with bright colored suspenders on, yes, but Grand Slam winning player? No.

Need some new stars on the Men's side and guys who have some heart and dont' get discouraged when their serve gets broken.

[Deleted]

What's tennis?

[hoyarooter]

"Roddick is type of "star" tennis needs to get away from in this country--he's someone who doesn't rise to occasion and yet claimed celebrity for what?"

Because he dated Mandy Moore?

[Boz]

Keep in mind, people were saying all these same things about Andre Agassi before he won at Wimbledon.

But, no, if I'm going to be honest, I don't see Roddick doing what Agassi did. He may win another major at some point, but probably not much more than that.

Jeez, where is Barbra Streisand when you need her? Off yelling nonsensically at George Bush while there's someone who needs her help right under her nose.

[AustinHoya03]

Michael Chang was fun to watch because he had charisma. The Americans who came before him -- Connors, McEnroe, Agassi -- had charisma. Lots of non-American players -- John Newcombe, Boris Becker, etc -- had it, too. They played hard, they played to win every point, and because of that they were emotional on the court. Nadal and Bagdhatis are the only men's players I see that currently play that way. Other players take points off, take sets off, and are afraid to scream, smile, or question the linesman while on the court. (Of course, there is some completely contrived emotion as well, see Lleyton "Come On" Hewitt). The boringness doesn't stop off the court. Everyone is trying to be the next "Pete Sampras," a nice guy and a real gentleman. I want to see Roddick talk some smack to Federer rather than hear him say "Well, I lost to the best player in the world" every time he loses to the guy in straight sets. That is both selling yourself short and kissing another player's rear.

Andy needs to fire his coach and hire someone who will make him come into the net. He also needs a headshrinker because, as you point out, he can't stop getting frustrated on the court and plays stupid tennis as a result. Finally, and most importantly, he needs to get ahold of a tape of the 1982 Wimbeldon final between McEnroe and Connors and watch it on loop.

[hifigator]

austinhoya03 said:

Michael Chang was fun to watch because he had charisma. The Americans who came before him -- Connors, McEnroe, Agassi -- had charisma. Lots of non-American players -- John Newcombe, Boris Becker, etc -- had it, too. They played hard, they played to win every point, and because of that they were emotional on the court. Nadal and Bagdhatis are the only men's players I see that currently play that way. Other players take points off, take sets off, and are afraid to scream, smile, or question the linesman while on the court. (Of course, there is some completely contrived emotion as well, see Lleyton "Come On" Hewitt). The boringness doesn't stop off the court. Everyone is trying to be the next "Pete Sampras," a nice guy and a real gentleman. I want to see Roddick talk some smack to Federer rather than hear him say "Well, I lost to the best player in the world" every time he loses to the guy in straight sets. That is both selling yourself short and kissing another player's rear.

Andy needs to fire his coach and hire someone who will make him come into the net. He also needs a headshrinker because, as you point out, he can't stop getting frustrated on the court and plays stupid tennis as a result. Finally, and most importantly, he needs to get ahold of a tape of the 1982 Wimbeldon final between McEnroe and Connors and watch it on loop.

Excellent points. We were talking about that the other day. Federer is an absolute machine but he is very similar to Bjorn Borg in that on the court he has about as much personality as a damp paper bag. There's no knocking his talent though. He is flat out amazing. His mental game is right there too. Nadal was very succeptable to ups and downs. Federer was more even kieled. Still you have to give Nadal some credit for winning the third set. After getting manhandled in the first set and then disappointingly losing the second after having a chance to serve it out in the tenth game, it would have been awful easy to throw in the towel. He showed some character winning the third set, but Federer was just too damn good.

As far as the Americans as concerned, I don't see anyone on the near horizon with both the potential and the charisma of Conners, McEnroe or Agassi. Roddick on his best day is only as exciting as Chang or Courier maybe.

[hoyarooter]

I agree with all of this, particularly the part about the players' charisma. Don't forget about Ilie Nastase.

I suppose that model that Boom Boom knocked up in the closet of the restaurant thought he had charisma, as well.

[AustinHoya03]

LMAO about your Boom-Boom comment. How could I leave Ilie Nastase, mayor of Bucharest and frequent crossword puzzle clue, out of my post?

Another thing that probably should have gone in the post above: my dad was/is a big Jimmy Connors fan, and one of his favorite Connors moments was the press conference after he got smoked by McEnroe in the 198? Wimbeldon finals. Some reporter asked him something along the lines of "So will you admit now that McEnroe is the better player in this rivalry?" Jimmy said a lot with a one-word response: "Never." Tennis needs competition/competitors like that again.

[hifigator]

I thought about mentioning Nastase as well. He was even more of the "bad boy" than McEnroe, but since Mac won more big titles he caught more of the heat. But I honestly enjoyed watching Nastase and as a kid was rooting for him to win normally. My grandparents' favorites were old time epitomes of grace and sportsmanship like Manuel Orantes. But they had to like Conners when he came along. He never just kept the ball in play; he was always trying to hit a winner. He would swing for the lines and would try to clear the net by a centimeter on every shot. They liked that style of play. I personally liked the flambouyance of McEnroe and Nastase myself, although I also like Roscoe Tanner during his brief run near the top. I miss that. Agassi was the closest thing we've had to that from an American in a long time, and I don't see any on the horizon.
I must admit though, even though she isn't American, I just love watching Martina Hingis play. I am glad she is back on tour. There is something about her wonderful smile. Ooh-lah-lah!

[nychoya3]

In the case of Federer, I'd just note how hard it is to be likable while being that good. Connors, Agassi, McEnroe - their personalities and public personas were forged at least partly by what they did on the court. They weren't perfect, and they would stumble, but you saw them fighting in fifth sets and in obvious pain - I particularly thinking of Connors here, who was never loved until that famous US Open run when his career was basically over. Federer, on the other hand, doesn't look like he's trying most of the time because it just looks so easy. He glides around the court, he makes incredible shots look easy, and he just generally looks unworried and unflappable. I love watching him because of the purity and perfection of his tennis, but for a less dedicated fan, I can see how it would be yawn inducing.

I am of the unpopular opinion that Roger Federer is the best athlete on the earth today by the way I understand the word "athlete."

I personally find Maria Sharapova very, um, compelling.

[hifigator]

nychoya3 said:

In the case of Federer, I'd just note how hard it is to be likable while being that good. Connors, Agassi, McEnroe - their personalities and public personas were forged at least partly by what they did on the court. They weren't perfect, and they would stumble, but you saw them fighting in fifth sets and in obvious pain - I particularly thinking of Connors here, who was never loved until that famous US Open run when his career was basically over. Federer, on the other hand, doesn't look like he's trying most of the time because it just looks so easy. He glides around the court, he makes incredible shots look easy, and he just generally looks unworried and unflappable. I love watching him because of the purity and perfection of his tennis, but for a less dedicated fan, I can see how it would be yawn inducing.

I am of the unpopular opinion that Roger Federer is the best athlete on the earth today by the way I understand the word "athlete."

I personally find Maria Sharapova very, um, compelling.

First things first: I too find Sharapova compelling. I just have a sweet spot in my heart for Martina Hingis. Is it just me or what? Am I the only red blooded male who goes gaga over her?

As far as Federer goes, I see your point. The same was said of Borg and then Lendl after him and in a sense, they have similar games. They dominated the sport and did so without that rocket of a serve which most modern phenoms possesed. McEnroe, Sampras, Becker, Courier, etc... all won more than their share of "free" points on their serve. Lendl did have a good serve in his day, but for the most part, Borg, Lendl and Federer have had their successes from the baseline. That to me seems to be especially difficult and in that regard, they deserve all that more praise.

Conners, Chang and Agassi on the other hand were most known for their return of serve and accordingly, had to fight that much harder since they didn't have the 20 or so free points that many of their contemporaries had.

[AustinHoya03]

Much better tennis from Andy in this U.S. Open. The old Andy would have crumbled after losing a first set tiebreak in an Open semifinal, but yesterday after going a set down to Youzhny he upped his game. Good luck to him in today's final against Mr. #1.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

he looked pretty good today. it wasn't enough but he looked a lot more liek his former self.

[aggypryd]

Federer's a BEAST!!!!

Good to see Andy and James take a set from him. Hopefully this provides them some momentum for next year.

[hifigator]

I think you guys said it pretty well. I was real encouraged by Roddick's overall play under Conners' tutelage however. I would really have liked to have seen him win the whole thing but I think his overall play will give him confidence in the tournaments to come.

I though that the third set was the key. For those who missed the match, Federer won the first set fairly easily breaking Roddick twice. To his credit, Roddick came back and took the second set with a break of his own. Then the third set was a battle of holding serve. I think it was a bit of bad luck that Federer was serving first. Everytime he would hold and then the pressure was really on Andy to not fall behind. He had to struggle to hold in both his third and fourth service games. After Federer held for a 5-4 lead, Roddick prompltly fell behind 0-40 on his serve. He fought off one match point but not the next. The third set went to Federer and for all intents and purposes the match was effectively over. I was a bit disappointed in what I perceived to be Roddick "giving up" in that fourth set. I know it would be hard to stay focused and driven in such a situation but still, I thought his effort in the final set was lackluster at best.
All in all however, that was a big improvement over the Roddick we have seen since he won there before. Maybe this can spur him on to reach the elite potential which he has. Only time will tell.

[Deleted]

Encouraging = still losing.

Just like US soccer, business as usual... don't believe the hype.

[hifigator]

buffalohoya said:

Encouraging = still losing.

Just like US soccer, business as usual... don't believe the hype.

I am not going to argue with you on that one. We have all heard the phrase that "potential" just means you haven't done anything yet. In Roddick's case, I think things came a little too easily for him. When he won the open before everything kind of fell into place. Not to take anything away from him and his efforts, but at the very least I think it went to his head so to speak. I remember seeing those ads right before the US Open either one or two years ago where he was supposedly out on the town the night before a big match. Then lo and behold some of our own paparazzi discovered there was a little more truth to that than originally thought. I know that is only part of the equation, but I honestly saw a different Roddick pretty much this whole tourny. And I do attribute at least a good portion of that to COnners' influence. I agree that finishing second still means that you didn't win. But I like the signs that I saw. I think this could be a spring board to future success, but only time will tell. On the other hand, this success even as a runner-up could go to his head as well, and 2 years from now we might all be asking what could have been?

[RDF]

Roddick is garbage. His new "persona" is created and not natural and between the lines that is exposed. I thought Federer didn't play that well at the Open and matches were there to be won by either Blake or Roddick and both gagged.

As for Hifi's comments of "tough break of Federer getting to serve first"--well all Roddick had to do was hold serve and he gets into a tie breaker in 3rd set--isn't that supposed to be Roddick's best aspect? I think he's beaten by Federer before match starts because he's shocked someone returns his serve and shoves ball right back at him. Roddick was talking tough and ACTING like he knew what a champion is made of--Connors can try all he wants but Federer knows what champions are made of and just finds ways to win--if Federer was at his best that match is over in 3 sets with a bagel thrown in there.

American Tennis is down because there is nobody that grasps the young people's attention. Agassi, Sampras, etc... had the likes of McEnroe, Connors to watch and emulate, Roddick, Blake had Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang, well who in American tennis is exciting to watch play? Roddick makes me a Federer fan and I'm not alone--watching football yesterday at a Sports Bar with Tennis on--those who saw match was on between plays mentioned how they liked Federer and Nadal and how they attack/play a fun style to watch. Sports is about how you play as much as winning--it's fun to watch great athletes compete and have game--it's not fun to watch a clown like Roddick who wins 1 tournament, serves well and has no game--he is treated like a great even though he's not proven it on court.

Do you honestly think he even makes final if he had to face Nadal? I think he's peaked now and is done and hopefully so. American tennis needs someone who is committed to being a champion and not a celebrity. The celebrity status comes with winning and Federer/Nadal are proof. I'd watch those two play anytime/anywhere--they are great athletes and play the sport with a style about their game--make shots or in catch phrase term are "playmakers". Blake is a good athlete who tightens up in big time spotlight and Roddick is a big server who has no game. He's Goran Ivanesvic without Goran's personality.

Athletes make their reputation on the court/not through promotion. I'd never heard of Federer or Nadal and only through their performance did I take notice--not what others said, it's just fun to watch people who can play--and earn it by their play not from years of hype and hope of "wanting them to win".

Laughed at fact Tiger Woods shows up at US Open and he's supporting Federer as well--it really Editeded Roddick off too and that is great. I think this whole "support Americans" in sports is silly--support the players/teams who capture your interest based on how they play/approach the game--not by what country they are from. It's like this attitude people have about you live in... so you should like....hell I hate every Minnesota team existing and hear it all of the time.

[stud]

Roddick's back up to #6 now, Blake falls to #8.

I guess the Davis Cup will be a good indication of whether he can continue playing well, but I'm more interested in how he comes out during the Australian Open next January. By that time he'll have been working with Connors for about 6 months, so hopefully he'll be able to show that his improving is consistant. I'm pretty sure the Rebound Ace surface is faster than the hard court at the US Open, which would play to his advantage with his serve. And he's reached the semi-finals of the AO twice before (2003,2005), so it would seem like it's definitely a winnable tourament for him. Of course that's not considering Federer.

I actually went to Melbourne Park/Rod Laver Arena last week when I was in Melbourne. I wish I was there when they were playing, but then again, I wouldn't have been able to tour the complex and go on court/sit at the interview podium. Sorry for the not so thinly veiled brag post.