Roddick. Surprised such a trash player beat the great Andy Murray.
Not sure what you're implying. At any rate Murray is a pretty good player, better than Roddick by some distance but Roddick played a blinder of a tournament.
I'd probably go with:
It's pretty clear. Roddick was a very good player and not the average one he's often spoken of as here.
Roddick was nothing special, so I'm not surprised a lot of people don't rate him too highly. Also painfully limited. Murray is miles better as is someone like Stan and a few more players around these days.
I didn't see much of 'peak Roddick' but I imagine his personality inflates peoples opinions of him. Personally, I find him great to listen to, remember him at Wimbledon on the BBC a few years ago. I also like the way he interacts on twitter for example (a lot more interesting than Novak, Rafa and Roger for example).
Roddick is not someone who you'll pay to watch. He also had the expectations of an entire nation to be the next #1 and next great player after Agassi and Sampras, which failing to do so, didn't win much followers. He's not as complete as Murray or Wawrinka I agree. But in his prime he had a huge forehand and serve and also good speed and movement around the court. With those qualities combined he could beat anyone on his day given practically his unbeatable serve and waiting for the opponent to have an off game in the set.
He didnt have enough weapons to be more than he was imo. Neutralize his serve and there wasn't much else left. Effective player when on his game certainly and very consistent. But at peak levels I think there have been lots of better players not to won grand slams.
He was a two trick pony if you can say that. His serve and forehand. His forehands were huge at the time. Later in his career he began to add more topspin and they were more loopy and not as good as they used to be.
Becker was my favorite player growing up. I loved the big serve and diving antics.
How would it work?
Why not put one together and show your calculations?
You'd think he's the one who'd lose out the most. His best surface is obviously hard courts, and unlike Fed or Nadal he got 2 shots at it per year to rack them up.
Better than Sampras?Good work Rafa. Cementing that #2 all time role nicely.
I assume the second post is sarcastic, but anyway.. if you look at Djokovic's opponents in slam finals he's won, it's Tsonga, Murray 5x, 3x Nadal/Federer. If you assign a player rating to his opponents at the point in which he beat them, it'd liekly come out to be higher value than the slams someone like Federer has racked up.
I don't disagree with this although one could argue that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic each ate into the other's stats since they all played overlappingly during the same period of time. Sampras didn't really have a comparable rival in that regard. Agassi may have been the closest but he went missing for a few years in the mid 90s and the only others were the likes of Edberg, Becker, Rafter (the former two were well past their prime and Rafter was not nearly in the category that the likes of Djokovic have been).
Five. Sampras has won two more (outside Wimbledone) but none on clay. I'd say Rafa's collection is more impressive. Not to mention the opponents he won them against and his general ability - both of which I'd rate higher.
Do you know there actually is a ranking for tennis players? One if I remember correctly Federer has the record being in the top #1 the longest. Do know the exactly algorithm but players do gain rating by winning matches and lose rating if they lose (duh), and unless you come with a better rating system you're just speculating stuff as the current system is already more objective, and complete, to what you're trying to claim here.
Personally I don't think its a big deal. What is paramount is that Rafa has won 15, which should comfortably put him in 2nd place in the GOAT discussions, above the likes of Sampras et al.
Hypothetically(because I dont believe he will) but if rafa overtakes federer's grand slam record will you consider him the GOAT?
Yeah it would be hard not to. If he matches Fed's overall ATP tournament titles then it would be even more definitive. Fed currently has 91 and Rafa 73.
Pretty much sums up my view as well.
Hmmm I would still have federer above him (this as a nadal fan) due to his playing style, federer had that class and grace alongside the numbers.
