I am afraid Andy Roddick needs to look in the mirror after the terrible treatment he gave the surbition tournament.I think he thinks he is Roger Federer but in reality he is an average player with a huge serve.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6729605.stm

I agree. Roddick is very one dimensional and so much depends on his serve. I could forgive that if he were a serve volleyer as this in itself is a recognised and effective style of play on grass, however is volleying is very poor and I can't find anything else that is especilly outstanding in his game.

His actions may be flawed in this example and the fines are hideously low but I disagree about Roddick's one-dimensional game yet again.

His serve is his main weapon yes but he serve volleys on faster surfaces as well as chip charge. His volley's are not that bad by any account and he has a fair amount of success with them at no.3 in the world no? his slice is pretty damn good and his forehand is a weapon.

Admittedly his topspin backhand is a hole in his game but that does not make him one dimensional.

I'm not saying you are wrong FW. I just find little that stands out for me with Roddick except his serve. Yes he has a big forehand but so many other players have caught him up in that department. When he first came onto the scene that aspect stood out but I personally don't think it does anymore. And I really don't rate his volleying skills highly. Sure, he makes volleys but he's lacking the skill and consistency to use this shot to his full advantage. He really, really needs to work on those volleys. :)

Yes Roddick has a big game, but that doesnt mean its a well-constructed game. his serve is the key weapon, but he lacks variation on it compared to say Safin, Federer even Nadal. Once players start to read it, it compunds his problems........

His forehand is big, but its not that big. I've seen much better examples of explosive forehands such as Gonzalez, Tursunov, Berdych, Djokovic and Safin. And his backhand just isnt a weapon full stop. He seems more able on the slice nowadays than he is ever trying to hit over the ball on the two-hander.

Obviously there are elements to his game such as his fighting qualities and his brusque on-court manner that have reaped success, but i still think there are huge holes in roddick game.

I was just thinking about his forehand dl and all those you named as having arguably bigger forehands sprang to mind. Gonzo's forehand has got to be more explosive than Roddick's.

Another thing that irratates me about Roddick is the way he tries to imtimidate his opponents by giving them long stares and often shouting at his opponents.

A classic example of this was just last week at Queens when he played Bogdanovic where he was clearly trying to imtimadate Boggo by shouting at him at times.Roddick is arrogant and also over the top in a confrantational way.I would love him to try and and do that to me if i was playing him.

The main problem with Roddick is that regardless how big his shots are or could be, his reading of his opponents' game is poor. So in short, he is very predictable while at the same time, struggles to anticipate where the next shot is coming from. You will soon realise he is often involved in some great rallies, thanks to his good shots but often is at the wrong end of those rallies because his opponent outsmarts him.

It is fair to say that without the serve, he would be top 20 at best! still...he is number 3 just after the clay season.....and that in itself is a great acheivement.

I know, I think he must be trying to copy old Jimmy Connors. roflmao

I don't find him scary at all, I just find him funny and if I was a tennis player I'd just laugh at him when he started all of that! :D

I don't dislike Roddick as a person btw. Off court he is quite funny and personable. :ok: And I really woudl like to see him develop a more complete game.

exactly! I find it incredibly frustrating watching him because you just know that he hasnt figured out his opponent but is winning the game because he's just aced his way out of trouble...

but that said, hes not got where he is totally on serve alone, so have to give him a teeny bit of credit.

i watched his game against Mahut and at times it was so dull - just serve, serve, serve, serve - game Roddick. Plus, there are certain times I don't like Roddick's on-court persona. When he won the second set and stood there roaring in Mahut's face - that annoyed me. A little "come on" would have been sufficient. And that weird stuff with hawk-eye - i think in the tie-break - where he was absolutelty sure the ball was out. I know he was having a bit of fun with the crowd, but it was obviously gonna put Mahut off slightly.

But, on the other hand, Roddick can be quite funny and jovial off the court, so i'm always a bit torn when it comes to him.

Well , his game may depend on the serve but then many people said the same thing about Sampras at Wimbledon . OK Roddicks game might be one-dimensional and not pretty to watch like Federers or Mahuts .
But at the end of the day as long as its effective thats all that matters. If it hadnt been for Federer he would be a multi-slam winner by now .
As for his on -court behaviour, probably a lot to do with Connors influence.
He's still a choirboy compared to Jimmy :) Quite a personable young man off the court .

Exactly! The fact he doesn't have any tactics is his greatest weakness :wacko:

So many times I've watched him, and he just looks confused!

well considering former world number 5 Greg Rusedski once said that if you took away his serve, then you might as well cut off his arm, then Roddick is hardly new in terms of this type of player in the top 5, no?

Roddicks Summation is his serve,without it he is useless!

Tennis players games fall into two catergories.Discovered or constructed.

Discovered meaning people like Federer,Mcenroe,Laver who have an almost sixth sense,and can pull off those shots where a commentator will say "you can't coach that."

Constructed meaning the game is almost too learned.this is the world where probably the majority of todays generation of players learned to hit percentages.The repetition of mindlessly banging the ball to correct patterns of angles breeds a machine like destruction.
Roddick is the ultimate example of this form where he has the two most obvious weapons.Serve,then forehand.
I don't know about everyone else,but I have now sensed a shift in the way the game is now going.
We are slowly moving toward more of an all-court style.I mean even Carlos Moya to the astonishment of the BBC commentary team was serving and volleying 42% of the time against Henman.

My point being that perhaps Roddick just lacks the ability to see the tennis court in a natural way.His game looks manafactured,even his new way of playing.I still admire him,his fire and determination,even if he looks moulded.

I believe if the the way tennis was starting to be played in what I would call the Hewitt era,that dodgy time between Sampras and Federer,Roddick may have gone on to win more slams.It seemed that tennis was resigned to being baseline ball bashing.I truly believe that world no1's shape playing styles of their times.They can influence others around them to add to their games.Roddick started out and reached an age where his game was seemingly ready to wreak havoc on the tennis world.2003 at the time when there was no clear direction after the S&v era of Sampras,he may have gone on and shaped the game at the top for others to follow,but then Federer got his head straight,and since the end of season masters in 2003,Roddick's time passed.
Since then he has looked a little lost despite his improvements.

I agree :ok: Not surprised Roddick stormed off though after Ginepri's remark to the crowd. roflmao

what was that?

A Rod is going all the way this year :)

Seriously though I like the way he get in his opponents face it shows me passion and desire, it worked against Bogdanovic and its makes great viewing.

Ginepri asked the audience (after a botched volley from Roddick, apparently) if there was anybody willing to volunteer as his new partner. :lol: There was some discussion about the incident in this thread a while back - not sure why the subject was dredged up nearly a month after the fact.

Generally I agree with what's been said regarding Roddick's game, especially his tactical weaknesses and susceptibility to being outsmarted in rallies by craftier opponents. And his serve does save him in a lot of instances - Nadal completely schooled him at Indian Wells for example but he still made out with a respectible scoreline on the basis of his serve.

I don't necessarily agree that a player should be dismissed as 'just a serve' however. It's a valid strength and a go-to shot, just as Gonzalez's monster forehand or Gasquet's gorgeous backhand are. Just because it starts a point (and can often end it at the same time) doesn't mean it's any less a solid tennis talent to possess, especially when it's world-class like Roddick's.

Roddicks problem is mainly he's overshadowed by a genius called Federer , made to look like a club player at times .

Fabulously put! :bow: The difference between discovered an constructed hits th enail smack on the head. i talso sums up why I love tennis and what I love about it - the unconstructed genius that is a sight to behold. :bow: :bow: :bow: I mean why have Westlife and thr Spice Girls when you can have real oringal genius music? No contest. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Once Gasquet settled into his game in the quarter he also made Roddick look like a club player imo.