Man, I respect Mr. Roddick. He is a monster and a dynamic server and he still can compliment Federer with wit and humor and respect. Dude, the stuff that makes us all want to be the best we can be no matter the circumstance. Thank you, Andy, for sure!
@@joecalao5485 absolutely! As polarizing Mac was I think he's an awesome announcer because he's transparent and insightful. Same goes for Brad Gilbert. I think the fact that Andy is so honest he doesn't really have a big ego.
That was funny. Federer being like, “Oh, you know now, huh?” Not many mentions at times about how he looks a while longer on the serve. But technically only possible if he has really good control on the toss, and good serving motion, which he does. I also like how he backs up what Federer does on the serve, and makes detailed descriptions of his, Agassi’s, and Sampras’s serve, and pretty much backs up why Federer rarely cranks past 120-125 mph mark. As Federer found out early on, that range was more than enough, especially when combined with accuracy, which to this very day, I’m not sure many servers are placing enough emphasis on. To me, the philosophy is simple. Do just enough on the serve, place it well enough, and put enough quality on to do damage, and save the big ones for very specific moments, and calculate when to do it. Basically efficiency in serving which the Big Three do very well. On the topic of the rankings freeze, the short version of what Roddick is saying is basically the If argument that Rafa pointed out. “If” does not exist. And the situation is tricky. There is that argument that Djokovic has enough points that for a while, no one can overtake him until a certain event. But the other problem is that the situation is forcing players to stay home, and thus not give them a chance to climb. There certainly are legit points on both sides, but at the end of the day, the decision was made, and complaining about it does nothing really, and quite frankly, at this time, should not be a concern when compared to what’s happening. Djokovic and the other guys are doing their part to help out. There was even an article about Rafa just putting tennis in a box for now and doing his part to help. In other words, the rankings system should not be a main concern right now, and can be addressed when the time is appropriate.
Talks such a good courtside game and, of course, has first hand experience of elite level. I really hope that we start to see more of Andy across many other platforms. He's still great for the game...
Of course freeze the rankings when the tour is unplayable... it's about meritocracy. You can't just give free credit out for doing nothing to warrant a reward of counting for something... it has to be earned. That goes for everyone, regardless of their prior prestige and history.
@@jackcslewis2009 Some people like Gilbert and Cahill suggest that it would be "fair to Djokovic" for him to keep the ranking. But that is ridiculous, you can't destroy everyone else's chances at improving rankings in order to benefit one person. That's preference or downright corruption at worst. Not to mention that argument deals solely on hypothetic scenarios, as Roddick says.
I know it wasn't directly relevant to how this interview played out, but I find It's interesting that I can't recall ever seeing any Tennis show discuss how changes in pace of the courts + racquet tech may have affected Roger's performances v Rafa and Novak. In the case of this interview it would also make sense discussing it with Andy about HIS game, too, as it probably didn't help him either. Sure, Roger usually was simply a class above, which is no disrespect to Andy; at another time he'd almost certainly have had a greater record himself. From what I recall, and I may well be incorrect about this, not only did the hard courts get slower from 2005-10 and then even more so beyond 2010, the WIMBLEDON courts did the same. The change in wear, both pattern AND degree, of Centre Court at Wimbledon over the 2 weeks across the years are pretty remarkable to see. That HAS to hurt the more aggressive and flexible game of Roger v the greater defensive skills of Rafa and especially Novak, doesn't it? Same goes for volleys, too. In fact too many surfaces seem to be getting more and more alike, such as the once very significant differences in speed between Arthur Ashe Stadium for the US Open and Rod Laver Arena for the Australian. I know I'm kind of splitting hairs, given the astounding (and faintly ridiculous, and I mean that in a good way) fact that Roger STILL came within a whisker of another Wimbledon in that incredible final. In a sense that's a perfect illustration of what I'm asking. Had the grass been as it was 10 years or so earlier, would the result have gone that way? None of which is meant to devalue or not acknowledge the frankly remarkable defence of Novak in particular, but I can't help but feel the continued reduction in net play, plus slower courts and particularly slower and higher bouncing Wimbledon, plus the change to the balls themselves, ALL worked against Roger's game. Not that it matters. All three are brilliant, and to have all of them playing each other for such a long time at such incredibly high levels of skill is a situation we're unlikely to see again in tennis any time soon (certainly not in my lifetime at least). Thoughts, anyone? Cheers
My thoughts are I can't believe it, if it's true that it affected him in more losses, and the others gained an advantage because of their playing style. Very shocking and very sad and very curious as you said what it would it be like if they remained faster courts
@Steeltrap I would argue that many courts are faster NOW than in the past In fact according to the Ultimate Tennis Statistics website, the fastest Wimbledon is 2014 ( Court speed 89 ), the event in which Djokovic won against Federer in the final. The last time serve and volley player won Wimbledon was Sampras in 2000 ( Court speed 68 ) and Ivanisevic in 2001 ( Court speed 65 ) But it's true that net games were less common than in the past, and I think it's because the racket evolution means more topspin into the game, and the rapid change eventually backfire against serve and volley player ( more risks of passing shots, harder to volley, the returning shots improve dramatically ). And coaches train players differently now that the racket has changed as opposed to wood racket with small hitting area in the 70s
Roddick had a mental block against fed. He would miss the easiest shots in important times of the match like the tiebreaker he choked in 2009. Hes a better player then his h2h record v fed shows.
alec morariu yeah he got the loser - mentality against fed expecting to lose before the game, then fed got that block against nadal on clay to miss easy shots and even quit games after 2 sets in the game ( even at 1-1)
@@innosanto On clay? Hahah Man go and look it up a bit better.. Federer lost 2008.RG finals with a bagel, Federer lost 2008. W finals, Federer lost 2009. AO finals Federer lost 2011. RG finals Federer lost 2012 AO semis Federer lost 2014.semis.. He only managed to beat Nadal in 2017 when Nadal lost almost all his physical power Man.. Federer dint beat Nadal in slams for 10 years almost.. And you still make a statement that it happened only on clay Hahahaah Terrible knowledge
Well, yes he had the same mental block as Fed had when playing Nadal after 63 61 60 in Roland Garros finals 2008.,then he knew his Wimbledon title is in danger.. After he lost that, he was totally mentally beaten and it confirmed by his Australian open finals loss 2009. He lost 3 big matches in grand slam finals in 8 months against Nadal.. P. S. Roddick didnt have only mental block when playing Federer or any of the big 3.. He simply didnt have the game.. Didnt have backhand.. After his serve, when they put the ball back in play, the point is finished.. He simply didnt have the weapon to be competative.. When he managed to make his BH working better in 2009' W finals he almost beat Federer.. Nadal crushed him at US open i remember like 62 62 62.. Same thing as Hewitt.. They were lucky to play before big 3 era and after Sampras's prime..
it wasn't just a mental block, although that became true at some point - fed was just plain smarter than him and roddick never fixed his flaws to take the next step. never fixed his garbage backhand, never learned to hit better approach shots or improve his disappointing volleys, even became *less* aggressive with his forehand. the fascinating second serve story he tells is illustrative. he let a tactical disadvantage go for years until it was too late because he wasn't smart enough to figure it out.
@@oldfrend Federer wasnt smarter, Roddick didnt have the game and thats how simple it is.. Roddick had a mental block later, when he lost few matches in a row of course against Fed.. But inteligence didnt play part in their rivalry, just a pure performance..
The problem with game was BH in general.. He simply couldnt do anything with it against the big 3.. Also his FH wasnt too strong in a rally.. Only as a first shot after a good serve.. When he imprived his BH in 2009 W finals then he almost beat Fed
for sure he's the best i've ever seen at returning power serves - andy's right about that. always blocked back 140mph and andy never had the serve and volley skills to punish the soft return. i always thought he should've figured that out and forced roger to swing through his 140mph serves and force him to hit more errors. chipping or blocking a return against sampras was easy volley putaway for sampras, but he could never hit 140 like roddick.
@@oldfrend agreed about roddick should have had better volley skills to pressure Rogers return. Remember though that when someone like Roger blocks a 140+ serve. That return is basically coming back like a bullet compared to someone who takes a big swing with their return of serve. So not all returns are coming slow as u think
yea wud have been nice and if roger won wimby 2019. then everything would fit. but as a roger fan it was cool that he broke the record in front of sampras so
I can't believe "You can't get credit for matches [or tournaments] you don't play" is a contestable claim. It would be ridiculous to give Djokovic (or whoever holds the number 1 ranking at any point in time) free time to keep that position while not allowing anyone to contest them in tournaments. It's bizarre. It's even more egregious when you take top 10 and top 20 players into account, as these positions change often, which means you're denying the people who could easily get there the chance to do so. It would be incredibly unfair for everyone to be denied the chance to improve their ranking while people who have already done it get to keep theirs without having to defend any points or earn more. Absolutely the right move, and I'm glad high-profile people like Roddick are speaking in favor of it.
Andy was not one of my favorite champions, BUT! he is certainly one of my favorite tennis commentators: so incisive, accurate in his analysis, AND funny, entertaining !!
I agree the rankings now and records in all aspects of the game should remain right as they are while no one can play and stay as they are and then add back on to the totals beginning the first tournament play resumes. Assumptions as to what someone may or may have not done during this time off doesn't serve any purpose in the historical text concerning the wonderful game of tennis!
I always loved Andy Roddick as a player, but I was confused how a big server like him couldn't win more points of his first serve. Maybe it was because of his placement, but a lot of the top players could return against him successfully.
Andy should have used his second service in place of his booming first serve (randomly). I don't know why he didn't bring some surprise element there. Roddick deserved at least 5-6 slams.
@@sainellore6874 No one deserves anything. People who work hard deserve chances to accomplish their dreams and it is on the person who can capitalize on the chances. Roddick worked hard and accomplished a lot. He didn't take all his chances, and a lot of that is on his opponent not letting him, but some of that was also on him. 2009 Wimbledon was his to take. He didn't. It's sad, but it's the truth.
@@multiplemike5021 I must agree with you. Good points! Still it hurts me to see that Andy retired as a one-slam-wonder. Even more disappointing that his 2003 US Open win was the last major by an American man! The Big Three has dominated the game mercilessly.
His serve was powerful and fast, but he was too much a specialist. He tried ( too late) to round out his game with great coaches like Connors, Gilbert and stefanki, but his rec- level backhand, court positioning and tactics were born in his game too early. No one could've anticipated how much game you would need to beat the big three. He wasn't alone. Hewitt, ferrero, Haas, grosjean, Blake, ferrer- no one had enough as it turned out.
@@hobbes4583 I don't claim to be an expert on Andy's game but my take, esp. against Federer, is that Andy's groundstrokes were not deep enough - Fed in particular destroyed balls hit short. As for serving I think Andy should have used slice more often and more effectively - open up the court don't just try to hit a straight 135 MPH serve.
Andy Roddick was a great player. His matches with Roger Federer were really tough with the exception of the Wimbledon 2005 final and the Australian Open 2007 semi final. Andy Roddick is a former World number 1 and a US Open champion. He's a great guy and a HOF player.
All great opportunities to watch, listen, commiserate, as we miss all our tennis players on the courts, too. Bethany on Tennis United gives a fantastic opportunity for us loyal fans to enjoy all who we miss.
Poor Andy, if Roger wasnt there he wouldve been a multiple times Slam winner... you can see he is still in shock that he had to face such a monster in the game, using frequently the words "annoying" or "frustrating"...
That forehand sitter that Roddick hit into the tape on his set point in the 1st set tiebreaker of the 2003 Wimbledon semifinal against Roger should counted as one of the most significant shots in tennis history. I would be fascinated to hear Andy's thoughts on that point, if he remembers it.
what sucks is that Novak had barely any points to defend from 2019 after the Australian until the French SF- Indian Wells, Miami, the clay season- he lost early every where- he could have picked up 2,000-3,000 points with sf/final results.
Prime Fed was something else. Shame Djokovic didn’t face the Wimbledon Fed from 2004, 2005 & 2009 in the finals from 2014, 2015 and 2019. Poor Roddick faced prime fed
Part of me thinks Roger will see this clip. I really hope that’s true and he’s laughing. I love the conversations between Andy, with his blunt self deprecating American humor, and Roger, with his reserved and thoughtful Swiss demeanor.
Can someone explain what it was that Roddick figured out about Federer that helped him win? He was talking too much tennis lingo that I couldn't decipher
Fed was reading Andy’s returning position, so when Andy went around (expecting a back hand return) to crank a return with his forehead, Roger knew it. Because Roger looks at the return player longer than other players.
I agree the rankings should be frozen...but what about the time between the ATP Finals and the first event of the following year? That's 6-7 dead weeks the #1 player gets without playing, etc.
that's a completely story there as tennis players need to rest up for what's coming next, Abu Dhabi starts even before the year ends and even tho it's not an ATP event (no points to rack up) most top players participate and then after that they go to a tune-up tournament in Australia so your point makes no sense here!
I think most people agree that's a reward for being year-end #1. Every player knows how and when it takes place and has the entire season to do everything they can to achieve it. It's not a surprise layoff like we're in now.
Exactly what I'm saying and why I think his #1 weeks should count. It's technically the same thing, just different circumstances. Not fair to take Djokovic's #1 weeks away because of something beyond his control.
Fair point, but during the break, NO tennis is played as there are no tournaments. We have a situation currently whereby tennis events that should be taken place are being cancelled.
Tennis is a funny sport. Yes, in all likelihood Novak will overtake Roger in weeks at No.1, Grandslam count but all it takes is one bad slump. It took Roger 5yrs to win a slam after 2012. Novak 2yrs after he held all 4 slams in 2016. Rafa 3yrs to win RG in 2017 after winning for 5 straight years. As Andy says, you shouldn't get credit for matches that you or others didn't play (Year-end is different because no one is playing at that time). I am glad that they are freezing the rankings and not giving away free weeks at No.1 to Novak (or anyone for that matter)
Sore loser. Novak was treated badly at the US Open. He was taunted by the crowds every year during serves. Fedal are the ones that got help & special treatment, especially when Novak was injured and had surgery recently & sick with Celiac disease in 2006-2009.
I agree with Andy about the ranking situation for Nole, someone should compute the number of weeks wherein it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Djokovic to lose the number 1 spot even if Rafa or any other players win everything, those weeks should be added to his tally of weeks at number 1
Federer had nearly same pace as Sampras. The Sampras had a heavier ball using so much lead tape. If Gilbert had not tried to make Roddick faster, he would have won a lot more slams. Similarly Anacone literally destroyed Federer's mojo. Federer should have contacted Edberg earlier.
WildLive 1 right .. only ☝️ what world do you live in friend? Do you take that into account at all or you prefer to operate only in imaginary ones? Sure Rafa has three titles but last one in 2013; was also finalist once.. Djoker? Listen up now 👂 five titles which is the tournament record , three of which were consecutive also the record, three times finalist also the record, most consecutive matches won record(19) and best winning percentage ever . So maybe let’s better get some hair out of eyes before justifying nonsense next time don’t you think?
First of all no way dj would be eliminated in qf. He was the best form player clearly and would win nadal as well let alone qf. He would most prob get it, very far from qf. And nadal wouldnt get it.
@@vsavage9913 Someone got triggered lol. My point was not based on what was likely to happen, only what was possible. Roddick was saying he'd be fine with the weeks at #1 counting ONLY if Djokovic was mathematically guaranteed to retain the ranking. I was proving it was not a guarantee.
WildLive 1 How old are you ?triggered lol Anyhow triggered maybe only by this the second time I find spreading nonsense and polluting our good cyberspace we all share by your name. But listen up now 👂 I make the same point more slowly so you may hear or follow or catch or whatever up if you wish. Unicorns are possible. Right? Because why not, just take a horse put a horn and there it is no? Of course only not really so easy right? But what is it that makes it difficult maybe even impossible? This what is meant by the world we live in, which comes with certain laws as well I’m sure you will recognize lol? So nevermind what the cowboy here is saying he ain’t a pretty bright bulb after all ( you listen everything your mom says?) And you actually imagine he didn’t know it was actually “mathematically impossible “ ??hehe think again! Hehe lol lol😝🔨
Federer was able to feed off his play and didn't allow him much time and people underestimate the power of matchups in Tennis, the Fed/Roddick matchup was bad for Riddick, same as Fed/Nadal was in favor of Nadal and so on.
Frustrating no one asked Roddick why all those years he didn't hit his first serves to fed's forehand. He would have been 100% more effective taking away the block returned backhand.
Roger, to me, does not make tennis look easy. It's just clear he knows what he's doing. Thiem and Nadal, on the other hand, make tennis look VERY hard.
Andy has really evolved into a thoughtful announcer. He was kind of a jerk as a player...but he is an absolute pleasure to listen to now that he has matured and isn't picking fights with people. I love how he understands his legacy and it wasnt wise to continue the feud with Novak...a bit like Kyrgios. Roger may be finally understanding this and softening on Novak....
Hahaha, seriously, WimblEOn? 0:15 Great job! About Roddick, he's always funny and he is also always nice when he speaks about Federer (like most of the people hopefully). “I threw the kitchen sink at him, but he went to bathroom and got his tub” Andy Roddick, about Roger Federer Or his crazy reaction to the best point ever in tennis: ua-cam.com/video/0-PZspgbirc/v-deo.html
Andy Rodick's Career Tanked when he backstabbed the French-Algerian Coach that made him who he became at the time and basically raised him in the game of tennis since he was a little kid " Tarik Benhabiles" ( Considered as one of the most brilliant coaches in Tennis History) I know this because I know Tarik personally. Two Jewish NewYorkers ( yes Jewish, and if you have a problem with it then, take it with the HAGE) convinced Andy to leave Tarik Benhabiles after he had just made him win the US Open. Right after he left the legendary coach that made him, Andy's career tanked. You would never hear this story from Andy, or anyone in Tennis, but this is what happened. They were too blind and too scheming to care about what could have been a great career ( They wanted to make money off the back of Andy, yet they knew shit about tennis), yet sadly this story is not the only one in Tennis. The famous Andy Rodick serve you all know, for example, was taught to andy in Boca Raton Fl by Tarick ( He used to tie heavy loads at the end of a road and make andy pull them, 100s of kilograms). This is just one technique, many great Tennis players are amazed when they meet Tarik because he would immediately look at the player and find a quick solution to his or her weakness in the game of tennis. If you want to confirm this or know about Tarik Benhabiles ask any famous player you will meet ( they all know him, Sampras, Federer, Monfils, etc... ) By the way Tarik believes that Samprass was the greatest tennis player of all time ( because during his time there were 10 or more great tennis players competing against each other, more gifted and more powerful than Nadal and even Federer ( Big competition makes for fewer trophies) Trophies don't prove anything if you have less competition. Boris Becker for instance would have won more trophies if he played today, the same goes for Aghassi and Samprass and others. Today Tarik has left the stabbing land we all know as the Tennis-USA, and he is happily living in the Far East.
Roddick would have being os much more if he did not play to the crowd look at me everybody I'm famous.also trying to be his opponents best friend in the whole world.
He likes to underestimate himself, making himself looking like “a fool” with 4 years in a row semi f f f . He wasnt looking like a fool on the court. It is true thiugh that the second half of his career he wasnt playing at the level that he was playing at the first part.
He definitely wasn't a fool. I think he recognises though the limits of his talent. His game was too one dimensional and had too many weak spots in it to make him one of the real greats. He was clearly very strong physically, but he also wasn't a great mover. I don't think he was a natural tennis talent - a strong athlete, but definitely didn't have good hands or brilliant movement. His backhand in particular was relatively poor and he could look very clunky at times.
fun fact: Andy's cap is actually a part of his skull.
Also a cartoon
@@jaywilley955 in one of Tennis Channels clips he wasn't wearing it and he legit looks like a different person
From a fellow balding man, hats are like underwear….we don’t leave home without em.
Lol never taking it off
Fun fact, Andy is actually Steve Stifler
Love hearing Andy talk about tennis; I’d love to see him commentate at big tournaments like the slams
Get rid of McEnroe and add him
@@worldtraveller8654 absolutely agree
sicboi has
He stink!
Murray once commented a Nadal-Delpo Wimbledon match and I’d love for him to return as a commentator whenever he decides to retire as well
Roddick is truly an intelligent sportsman...i could keep listening all the time! best commentator from the former high-ranked pros
He's always been a talker
Not only intelligent. He's humble. And funny.
Man, I respect Mr. Roddick. He is a monster and a dynamic server and he still can compliment Federer with wit and humor and respect. Dude, the stuff that makes us all want to be the best we can be no matter the circumstance. Thank you, Andy, for sure!
I just love Andy! He is the perfect combo of knowledge and humor. I wish he would be a full time commentator. 😀
Andy has such a great media personality.
I agree with Andy about the rankings.
Andy Roddick is so refreshing! Informative, insightful, honest and funny!
vectorthurm Andy would make a great announcer.
@@joecalao5485 absolutely! As polarizing Mac was I think he's an awesome announcer because he's transparent and insightful. Same goes for Brad Gilbert. I think the fact that Andy is so honest he doesn't really have a big ego.
He's always been funny.Great personality.
That was funny. Federer being like, “Oh, you know now, huh?” Not many mentions at times about how he looks a while longer on the serve. But technically only possible if he has really good control on the toss, and good serving motion, which he does. I also like how he backs up what Federer does on the serve, and makes detailed descriptions of his, Agassi’s, and Sampras’s serve, and pretty much backs up why Federer rarely cranks past 120-125 mph mark. As Federer found out early on, that range was more than enough, especially when combined with accuracy, which to this very day, I’m not sure many servers are placing enough emphasis on. To me, the philosophy is simple. Do just enough on the serve, place it well enough, and put enough quality on to do damage, and save the big ones for very specific moments, and calculate when to do it. Basically efficiency in serving which the Big Three do very well.
On the topic of the rankings freeze, the short version of what Roddick is saying is basically the If argument that Rafa pointed out. “If” does not exist. And the situation is tricky. There is that argument that Djokovic has enough points that for a while, no one can overtake him until a certain event. But the other problem is that the situation is forcing players to stay home, and thus not give them a chance to climb. There certainly are legit points on both sides, but at the end of the day, the decision was made, and complaining about it does nothing really, and quite frankly, at this time, should not be a concern when compared to what’s happening. Djokovic and the other guys are doing their part to help out. There was even an article about Rafa just putting tennis in a box for now and doing his part to help. In other words, the rankings system should not be a main concern right now, and can be addressed when the time is appropriate.
Talks such a good courtside game and, of course, has first hand experience of elite level. I really hope that we start to see more of Andy across many other platforms. He's still great for the game...
Of course freeze the rankings when the tour is unplayable... it's about meritocracy. You can't just give free credit out for doing nothing to warrant a reward of counting for something... it has to be earned. That goes for everyone, regardless of their prior prestige and history.
Exactly, it seems kind of strange that this is even a debate... what is the argument for not freezing that shite?
Exactly it's fair for everyone. What else could they do?
@@jackcslewis2009 Some people like Gilbert and Cahill suggest that it would be "fair to Djokovic" for him to keep the ranking. But that is ridiculous, you can't destroy everyone else's chances at improving rankings in order to benefit one person. That's preference or downright corruption at worst. Not to mention that argument deals solely on hypothetic scenarios, as Roddick says.
I know it wasn't directly relevant to how this interview played out, but I find It's interesting that I can't recall ever seeing any Tennis show discuss how changes in pace of the courts + racquet tech may have affected Roger's performances v Rafa and Novak. In the case of this interview it would also make sense discussing it with Andy about HIS game, too, as it probably didn't help him either. Sure, Roger usually was simply a class above, which is no disrespect to Andy; at another time he'd almost certainly have had a greater record himself.
From what I recall, and I may well be incorrect about this, not only did the hard courts get slower from 2005-10 and then even more so beyond 2010, the WIMBLEDON courts did the same. The change in wear, both pattern AND degree, of Centre Court at Wimbledon over the 2 weeks across the years are pretty remarkable to see.
That HAS to hurt the more aggressive and flexible game of Roger v the greater defensive skills of Rafa and especially Novak, doesn't it? Same goes for volleys, too. In fact too many surfaces seem to be getting more and more alike, such as the once very significant differences in speed between Arthur Ashe Stadium for the US Open and Rod Laver Arena for the Australian.
I know I'm kind of splitting hairs, given the astounding (and faintly ridiculous, and I mean that in a good way) fact that Roger STILL came within a whisker of another Wimbledon in that incredible final. In a sense that's a perfect illustration of what I'm asking. Had the grass been as it was 10 years or so earlier, would the result have gone that way?
None of which is meant to devalue or not acknowledge the frankly remarkable defence of Novak in particular, but I can't help but feel the continued reduction in net play, plus slower courts and particularly slower and higher bouncing Wimbledon, plus the change to the balls themselves, ALL worked against Roger's game.
Not that it matters. All three are brilliant, and to have all of them playing each other for such a long time at such incredibly high levels of skill is a situation we're unlikely to see again in tennis any time soon (certainly not in my lifetime at least).
Thoughts, anyone?
Cheers
My thoughts are I can't believe it, if it's true that it affected him in more losses, and the others gained an advantage because of their playing style. Very shocking and very sad and very curious as you said what it would it be like if they remained faster courts
@Steeltrap
I would argue that many courts are faster NOW than in the past
In fact according to the Ultimate Tennis Statistics website, the fastest Wimbledon is 2014 ( Court speed 89 ), the event in which Djokovic won against Federer in the final.
The last time serve and volley player won Wimbledon was Sampras in 2000 ( Court speed 68 ) and Ivanisevic in 2001 ( Court speed 65 )
But it's true that net games were less common than in the past, and I think it's because the racket evolution means more topspin into the game, and the rapid change eventually backfire against serve and volley player ( more risks of passing shots, harder to volley, the returning shots improve dramatically ). And coaches train players differently now that the racket has changed as opposed to wood racket with small hitting area in the 70s
Roddick had a mental block against fed. He would miss the easiest shots in important times of the match like the tiebreaker he choked in 2009. Hes a better player then his h2h record v fed shows.
alec morariu yeah he got the loser - mentality against fed expecting to lose before the game, then fed got that block against nadal on clay to miss easy shots and even quit games after 2 sets in the game ( even at 1-1)
@@innosanto On clay?
Hahah
Man go and look it up a bit better..
Federer lost 2008.RG finals with a bagel, Federer lost 2008. W finals, Federer lost 2009. AO finals
Federer lost 2011. RG finals
Federer lost 2012 AO semis
Federer lost 2014.semis..
He only managed to beat Nadal in 2017 when Nadal lost almost all his physical power
Man.. Federer dint beat Nadal in slams for 10 years almost..
And you still make a statement that it happened only on clay
Hahahaah
Terrible knowledge
Well, yes he had the same mental block as Fed had when playing Nadal after 63 61 60 in Roland Garros finals 2008.,then he knew his Wimbledon title is in danger.. After he lost that, he was totally mentally beaten and it confirmed by his Australian open finals loss 2009.
He lost 3 big matches in grand slam finals in 8 months against Nadal..
P. S. Roddick didnt have only mental block when playing Federer or any of the big 3..
He simply didnt have the game..
Didnt have backhand..
After his serve, when they put the ball back in play, the point is finished..
He simply didnt have the weapon to be competative..
When he managed to make his BH working better in 2009' W finals he almost beat Federer..
Nadal crushed him at US open i remember like
62 62 62..
Same thing as Hewitt..
They were lucky to play before big 3 era and after Sampras's prime..
it wasn't just a mental block, although that became true at some point - fed was just plain smarter than him and roddick never fixed his flaws to take the next step. never fixed his garbage backhand, never learned to hit better approach shots or improve his disappointing volleys, even became *less* aggressive with his forehand. the fascinating second serve story he tells is illustrative. he let a tactical disadvantage go for years until it was too late because he wasn't smart enough to figure it out.
@@oldfrend Federer wasnt smarter, Roddick didnt have the game and thats how simple it is.. Roddick had a mental block later, when he lost few matches in a row of course against Fed.. But inteligence didnt play part in their rivalry, just a pure performance..
Please keep Andy on tennis channel!
The problem with Andy's game was that he couldn't go down the line with his two handed BH.
That 09 final he actually had it. Poor guy.
The second part if his career he just wasnt playong as well as in the first oart for me. He wasnt training as well he should perhaps.
The problem with game was BH in general..
He simply couldnt do anything with it against the big 3..
Also his FH wasnt too strong in a rally.. Only as a first shot after a good serve..
When he imprived his BH in 2009 W finals then he almost beat Fed
He was bad at scrambling for balls, he was giving up easily. Just like Richard Gasquet does. But a great server, had a big game.
@@jonbonesmahomes7472 He developed a good slice but had a hitch in his two handed and could never hit it with pace or go down the line.
Really like Roddick, gutted for him that he never quite managed to win Wimbledon
I think there needs to be a category for most painful match of all time, has to be 2009 Wimbledon final
@@ryanguzman4480 very true.
Roger is a nightmare for big servers and serve volley players
for sure he's the best i've ever seen at returning power serves - andy's right about that. always blocked back 140mph and andy never had the serve and volley skills to punish the soft return. i always thought he should've figured that out and forced roger to swing through his 140mph serves and force him to hit more errors. chipping or blocking a return against sampras was easy volley putaway for sampras, but he could never hit 140 like roddick.
@@oldfrend agreed about roddick should have had better volley skills to pressure Rogers return. Remember though that when someone like Roger blocks a 140+ serve. That return is basically coming back like a bullet compared to someone who takes a big swing with their return of serve. So not all returns are coming slow as u think
I really wish that Andy won 2009 Wimbledon! That stupid volley ruined everything
Right on! He deserved to win that final lol Freaking Federer man
Aw man. Yes absolutely. That damn volley!
@@stevel.2759 I think even federer thought he should have won. really bad luck that it was just never enough for roddick
yea wud have been nice and if roger won wimby 2019. then everything would fit. but as a roger fan it was cool that he broke the record in front of sampras so
Poggos 2019 was justice. Federer’s first 3 Wimbledons were gifts, and he got extremely lucky in 2007, 2009 and 2017.
I can't believe "You can't get credit for matches [or tournaments] you don't play" is a contestable claim. It would be ridiculous to give Djokovic (or whoever holds the number 1 ranking at any point in time) free time to keep that position while not allowing anyone to contest them in tournaments. It's bizarre. It's even more egregious when you take top 10 and top 20 players into account, as these positions change often, which means you're denying the people who could easily get there the chance to do so. It would be incredibly unfair for everyone to be denied the chance to improve their ranking while people who have already done it get to keep theirs without having to defend any points or earn more. Absolutely the right move, and I'm glad high-profile people like Roddick are speaking in favor of it.
Very good questions and commentary!
Andy's reasoning and thinking is the best out there for sure, he should definitely be a commentator for slams
Andy was not one of my favorite champions, BUT! he is certainly one of my favorite tennis commentators: so incisive, accurate in his analysis, AND funny, entertaining !!
I loved watching Andy/Roger matches, partially because Andy was always as entertaining with his comments as he was with his play.
Damn Brad Gilbert's take on the rankings is moronic lmao. He went with what ifs
Gilbert's always been a huckster, trying to sell you a line
@@thadtuiol1717 He's a strange cat for sure. Great coach though.
Andy Roddick’s stories and analyses are fun and insightful. Have him comment more please.
I agree the rankings now and records in all aspects of the game should remain right as they are while no one can play and stay as they are and then add back on to the totals beginning the first tournament play resumes. Assumptions as to what someone may or may have not done during this time off doesn't serve any purpose in the historical text concerning the wonderful game of tennis!
I love and miss Andy =) amazing player and person.
I always loved Andy Roddick as a player, but I was confused how a big server like him couldn't win more points of his first serve. Maybe it was because of his placement, but a lot of the top players could return against him successfully.
Andy should have used his second service in place of his booming first serve (randomly). I don't know why he didn't bring some surprise element there. Roddick deserved at least 5-6 slams.
@@sainellore6874 No one deserves anything. People who work hard deserve chances to accomplish their dreams and it is on the person who can capitalize on the chances. Roddick worked hard and accomplished a lot. He didn't take all his chances, and a lot of that is on his opponent not letting him, but some of that was also on him. 2009 Wimbledon was his to take. He didn't. It's sad, but it's the truth.
@@multiplemike5021 I must agree with you. Good points! Still it hurts me to see that Andy retired as a one-slam-wonder. Even more disappointing that his 2003 US Open win was the last major by an American man! The Big Three has dominated the game mercilessly.
His serve was powerful and fast, but he was too much a specialist. He tried ( too late) to round out his game with great coaches like Connors, Gilbert and stefanki, but his rec- level backhand, court positioning and tactics were born in his game too early. No one could've anticipated how much game you would need to beat the big three. He wasn't alone. Hewitt, ferrero, Haas, grosjean, Blake, ferrer- no one had enough as it turned out.
@@hobbes4583 I don't claim to be an expert on Andy's game but my take, esp. against Federer, is that Andy's groundstrokes were not deep enough - Fed in particular destroyed balls hit short. As for serving I think Andy should have used slice more often and more effectively - open up the court don't just try to hit a straight 135 MPH serve.
Andy Roddick was a great player. His matches with Roger Federer were really tough with the exception of the Wimbledon 2005 final and the Australian Open 2007 semi final. Andy Roddick is a former World number 1 and a US Open champion. He's a great guy and a HOF player.
Andy Roddick one of my favorite players likes to joke but still down to earth. Greatest server under 6 foot 6
Andy needs to commentate he has great presence
All great opportunities to watch, listen, commiserate, as we miss all our tennis players on the courts, too. Bethany on Tennis United gives a fantastic opportunity for us loyal fans to enjoy all who we miss.
Poor Andy, if Roger wasnt there he wouldve been a multiple times Slam winner... you can see he is still in shock that he had to face such a monster in the game, using frequently the words "annoying" or "frustrating"...
Andy is so handsome. Love him so much!
i didnt know roger played on grass..... i thought all drugs were banned.
Hiooooooooooooo
"it was frustrating.. it was annoying"
Wow. The quality of skype calls is so good.
...articulate
insightful
& fluent
dude
That forehand sitter that Roddick hit into the tape on his set point in the 1st set tiebreaker of the 2003 Wimbledon semifinal against Roger should counted as one of the most significant shots in tennis history. I would be fascinated to hear Andy's thoughts on that point, if he remembers it.
Well he had 4 chances for 2 set lead in 2009 so that's a bigger trauma for him.
excellent point, he missed a sitter at 2009..
I'm sure he remembers.
what sucks is that Novak had barely any points to defend from 2019 after the Australian until the French SF- Indian Wells, Miami, the clay season- he lost early every where- he could have picked up 2,000-3,000 points with sf/final results.
Andy seems like a top guy. Interesting video. Thanks
Roddick would have won so many more majors if it wasnt for Federer
Haha..
What a statement..
No shit..
Fed wouldnt have won 20 if he wasnt born 5 years before Nadal and Djokovic..
He woukd have had 10 max..
@@jonbonesmahomes7472 +1 but no need to be toxic
@@benedictly1571 I am not being toxic, just saying..
@@jonbonesmahomes7472 bull shit lmao
@@jonbonesmahomes7472 or: if nadal and nole were born 5 years earlier they wouldn't have won that many majors like they did now.
oh man great stuff
Best lines...Andy - I was playing terrible and he was playing Roger
Prime Fed was something else. Shame Djokovic didn’t face the Wimbledon Fed from 2004, 2005 & 2009 in the finals from 2014, 2015 and 2019. Poor Roddick faced prime fed
Part of me thinks Roger will see this clip. I really hope that’s true and he’s laughing. I love the conversations between Andy, with his blunt self deprecating American humor, and Roger, with his reserved and thoughtful Swiss demeanor.
Never liked Andy's tennis but he always seems like a great guy. He'd make a great commentator.
Can someone explain what it was that Roddick figured out about Federer that helped him win? He was talking too much tennis lingo that I couldn't decipher
Fed was reading Andy’s returning position, so when Andy went around (expecting a back hand return) to crank a return with his forehead, Roger knew it. Because Roger looks at the return player longer than other players.
@@yeskimkim so what was the adjustment that Roddick made
Lee Brandt he waited another split second before he moved.
What’s the big deal? All players do that to some degree
@@maxwelldewinter But some do better.
Why do these tennis channel videos end abruptly?
Smart guy Andy. I agree with everything he says.
Roger tricked Andy with MANY shots over the years!!!
😂🤣😂
tennis channel you should get fed nadal djok and an interviewer :)
Andy proved correct on Novack. It's been a mess for him the last couple of years and Nadal took full advantage.
I agree the rankings should be frozen...but what about the time between the ATP Finals and the first event of the following year? That's 6-7 dead weeks the #1 player gets without playing, etc.
that's a completely story there as tennis players need to rest up for what's coming next, Abu Dhabi starts even before the year ends and even tho it's not an ATP event (no points to rack up) most top players participate and then after that they go to a tune-up tournament in Australia so your point makes no sense here!
I think most people agree that's a reward for being year-end #1. Every player knows how and when it takes place and has the entire season to do everything they can to achieve it. It's not a surprise layoff like we're in now.
Exactly what I'm saying and why I think his #1 weeks should count. It's technically the same thing, just different circumstances. Not fair to take Djokovic's #1 weeks away because of something beyond his control.
I think they don't freeze it because the season is still going on. Like atp challengers
Fair point, but during the break, NO tennis is played as there are no tournaments. We have a situation currently whereby tennis events that should be taken place are being cancelled.
tony romo of tennis
Tennis is a funny sport. Yes, in all likelihood Novak will overtake Roger in weeks at No.1, Grandslam count but all it takes is one bad slump. It took Roger 5yrs to win a slam after 2012. Novak 2yrs after he held all 4 slams in 2016. Rafa 3yrs to win RG in 2017 after winning for 5 straight years. As Andy says, you shouldn't get credit for matches that you or others didn't play (Year-end is different because no one is playing at that time). I am glad that they are freezing the rankings and not giving away free weeks at No.1 to Novak (or anyone for that matter)
...but in the same time, it's not completely fair for Djokovic. He would have probably achieve the record in September 🙄
@@mickaellandry9726* October 5th if every thing was to remain the same
Novak is the only unbeaten player he was going to reach Roger at 310 weeks at no 1
Took Rafa 3 years, between RG 14 and RG 17.
Sore loser. Novak was treated badly at the US Open. He was taunted by the crowds every year during serves. Fedal are the ones that got help & special treatment, especially when Novak was injured and had surgery recently & sick with Celiac disease in 2006-2009.
I agree with Andy about the ranking situation for Nole, someone should compute the number of weeks wherein it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Djokovic to lose the number 1 spot even if Rafa or any other players win everything, those weeks should be added to his tally of weeks at number 1
I still think Roger gave his buddy Andy that win in Miami
Federer had nearly same pace as Sampras. The Sampras had a heavier ball using so much lead tape. If Gilbert had not tried to make Roddick faster, he would have won a lot more slams. Similarly Anacone literally destroyed Federer's mojo. Federer should have contacted Edberg earlier.
He should have worked with a backhand specialist post 2007?
@@kailashpatel1706 his backhand was ok.. i had emailed him without any reply in 2009. his problem was mental that edberg fixed
Nadal could've been #1 after Indian Wells (Nadal wins + Djokovic loses in QF), so Djokovic wasn't guaranteed to stay at #1 for any length of time.
WildLive 1 right .. only ☝️ what world do you live in friend? Do you take that into account at all or you prefer to operate only in imaginary ones? Sure Rafa has three titles but last one in 2013; was also finalist once.. Djoker? Listen up now 👂 five titles which is the tournament record , three of which were consecutive also the record, three times finalist also the record, most consecutive matches won record(19) and best winning percentage ever . So maybe let’s better get some hair out of eyes before justifying nonsense next time don’t you think?
First of all no way dj would be eliminated in qf. He was the best form player clearly and would win nadal as well let alone qf. He would most prob get it, very far from qf. And nadal wouldnt get it.
@@vsavage9913 Someone got triggered lol. My point was not based on what was likely to happen, only what was possible.
Roddick was saying he'd be fine with the weeks at #1 counting ONLY if Djokovic was mathematically guaranteed to retain the ranking. I was proving it was not a guarantee.
WildLive 1 How old are you ?triggered lol
Anyhow triggered maybe only by this the second time I find spreading nonsense and polluting our good cyberspace we all share by your name. But listen up now 👂 I make the same point more slowly so you may hear or follow or catch or whatever up if you wish.
Unicorns are possible. Right? Because why not, just take a horse put a horn and there it is no?
Of course only not really so easy right? But what is it that makes it difficult maybe even impossible? This what is meant by the world we live in, which comes with certain laws as well I’m sure you will recognize lol?
So nevermind what the cowboy here is saying he ain’t a pretty bright bulb after all ( you listen everything your mom says?) And you actually imagine he didn’t know it was actually “mathematically impossible “ ??hehe think again! Hehe lol lol😝🔨
@@vsavage9913 okay boomer
Roddick for President!
Great guy
Roger has 20 slams but Roddick has Brooklyn Decker...call it a draw
I subscribed because of Andy.
Roddick was one of my favourite tennis players but somehow he used to square off his chances while playing against Federer
Federer was able to feed off his play and didn't allow him much time and people underestimate the power of matchups in Tennis, the Fed/Roddick matchup was bad for Riddick, same as Fed/Nadal was in favor of Nadal and so on.
when tennis tournaments stop for any reason rankings must be freezed, it shouldn´t be a debate.
Djoko fans has left the chat
Instead of introducing him as a us open champion, the lower caption says 0-4 Vs fed 🤣
... I miss him though
Did Stiffler used to play tennis?
man I wish I would have been slightly older to watch Andy play
i did not get about andy explaining about Roger's serve and pulling the string
Frustrating no one asked Roddick why all those years he didn't hit his first serves to fed's forehand. He would have been 100% more effective taking away the block returned backhand.
Tesla Death Ray I don’t think that would have ended well either
@@adrianyuen6162 You can't neutralize with a forehand return. you have to come over the ball, so roddick's power would have had impact
@@Tesla_Death_Ray You can chip a forehand return
@@adrianyuen6162 5% as consistently
Andy's tennis IQ is off the charts.
Andy is spoton
i want him as a commentator
Roger, to me, does not make tennis look easy. It's just clear he knows what he's doing. Thiem and Nadal, on the other hand, make tennis look VERY hard.
I understand what you are trying to say but Federer does make it look easy.
Andy has really evolved into a thoughtful announcer. He was kind of a jerk as a player...but he is an absolute pleasure to listen to now that he has matured and isn't picking fights with people. I love how he understands his legacy and it wasnt wise to continue the feud with Novak...a bit like Kyrgios. Roger may be finally understanding this and softening on Novak....
2:31
Lindsay !!!❤️
Stifler is pretty knowledgeable about tennis
Roddick is am excellent tennis analyst
Hahaha, seriously, WimblEOn? 0:15 Great job!
About Roddick, he's always funny and he is also always nice when he speaks about Federer (like most of the people hopefully).
“I threw the kitchen sink at him, but he went to bathroom and got his tub” Andy Roddick, about Roger Federer
Or his crazy reaction to the best point ever in tennis: ua-cam.com/video/0-PZspgbirc/v-deo.html
give every atp wta player money as though they made first round of every 250-500 event.
what does " hitting winners while on the ropes" mean ?
I would assume it means hitting a winner while being on the defense.
@@nschuehlyMakes sense, thank you :)
hitting winners under pressure
he can talk tennis
Washington !
Feel bad for Andy coz he faced peak Federer multiple times in the finals....he could've easily won 2 more slams
Roddick is a very good commentator. Maybe it’s time he takes over for Patrick McEnroe who is a nice guy but boring as hell!
Dang, Andy is STILL looking HOT !!! woof
ATP should move all tournaments to countries that let players in regardless of vaccination status or if their home countries are at war.
Andy Rodick's Career Tanked when he backstabbed the French-Algerian Coach that made him who he became at the time and basically raised him in the game of tennis since he was a little kid " Tarik Benhabiles" ( Considered as one of the most brilliant coaches in Tennis History) I know this because I know Tarik personally. Two Jewish NewYorkers ( yes Jewish, and if you have a problem with it then, take it with the HAGE) convinced Andy to leave Tarik Benhabiles after he had just made him win the US Open. Right after he left the legendary coach that made him, Andy's career tanked. You would never hear this story from Andy, or anyone in Tennis, but this is what happened. They were too blind and too scheming to care about what could have been a great career ( They wanted to make money off the back of Andy, yet they knew shit about tennis), yet sadly this story is not the only one in Tennis. The famous Andy Rodick serve you all know, for example, was taught to andy in Boca Raton Fl by Tarick ( He used to tie heavy loads at the end of a road and make andy pull them, 100s of kilograms). This is just one technique, many great Tennis players are amazed when they meet Tarik because he would immediately look at the player and find a quick solution to his or her weakness in the game of tennis. If you want to confirm this or know about Tarik Benhabiles ask any famous player you will meet ( they all know him, Sampras, Federer, Monfils, etc... ) By the way Tarik believes that Samprass was the greatest tennis player of all time ( because during his time there were 10 or more great tennis players competing against each other, more gifted and more powerful than Nadal and even Federer ( Big competition makes for fewer trophies) Trophies don't prove anything if you have less competition. Boris Becker for instance would have won more trophies if he played today, the same goes for Aghassi and Samprass and others.
Today Tarik has left the stabbing land we all know as the Tennis-USA, and he is happily living in the Far East.
Roddick would have being os much more if he did not play to the crowd look at me everybody I'm famous.also trying to be his opponents best friend in the whole world.
There can be only one Rodger.
He likes to underestimate himself, making himself looking like “a fool” with 4 years in a row semi f f f . He wasnt looking like a fool on the court. It is true thiugh that the second half of his career he wasnt playing at the level that he was playing at the first part.
He definitely wasn't a fool. I think he recognises though the limits of his talent. His game was too one dimensional and had too many weak spots in it to make him one of the real greats. He was clearly very strong physically, but he also wasn't a great mover. I don't think he was a natural tennis talent - a strong athlete, but definitely didn't have good hands or brilliant movement. His backhand in particular was relatively poor and he could look very clunky at times.
And he hated his shirt! 😂
Andy is smart
5:42 if you listen carefully it sounds like he’s saying No Vax.
Andy Roddick deserved to have won more than 3 matches against Roger...
they already stole some ranking points from NADAL before they froze everything!! give them back!!!
👍🏻
Andy Rocket at your service 😁