After losing to Kohlschreiber in the 3rd round of the AO, what does Roddick do now? He'll drop down the rankings somewhat considering he got to the semis here last year.

Last year he's results were as good as he'd hoped I'm sure:

Got to the quarters at the US Open and Wimbledon, got to the semis of the AO (I won't even mention the French.....)

He won two tournaments last year - Queen's and Washington. He's made it to a few finals, a few semis, and a few quarters, but nothing particularly impressive.

So where does he go from here?

This question was asked before a couple of years back when it looked liek things were over for him and he got Connors on board and he came back with better results last year. OK so he did not win a slam but then he shouldn't have done either because he wasn't as good as the competition that did, and whatever he does he never will be. All he can really do it keep trying and working on his game. Ideally he needs to add more dimensions to it but I don't think that will happen at this stage in his career. I can't really think of anything more that would help him, I think mentally he is fine unless faced by Federer which can make him crumble, but he doesn't lose to him because of a mental breakdown - it's lack fo comparitive skill.

I think a problem for Andy is that his huge weapons that ensured him wins in the past are no longer considered huge. Obviously his serve is still great, and he uses it to get him out of trouble a lot , but other have improved their serves too. His other big weapon was his forehand - remember how he used to blast people of court? Well there are plenty more big forehands on the scene these days and his is no longer anything special. One thing he could do is try to attack more, but he isn't the greatest volleyer and touch shot player naturally so how far he could get I do not know. :shrug: My guess though is not very far. Anyway today he played an opponent who was on fire with a huge number of winners and a small number of unforced errors. His opponent was also mentally tough. I'm nto sure 100% but I think Khly woudl have beaten quite a few top 10 players if he had played like that against them.

he should stick to modelling :tongue:

Trust you! :rolleyes: :lol:

For me Roddick should be happy to hover around the top 10 spot for now. He is a battler and, after all has a great serve. But his sense of anticipation, his reading of the game is pretty poor and no one can do anything about this now, not even Connors. So if he can keep his confidence up (very important in his game), then he has a chance to stay in the top 10, otherwise, he is going to slide. I can't see him stay in the top 5 anyhow.

Keep battling away - he's 26 and he's probably got a couple of respectable years left in him.

Whilst their games are very different, I think he is pretty similar to Michael Chang in terms of the sort of career he could end up with. Chang was born 10 years before Roddick so you can compare their career trajectories quite well. Whilst Chang he got his GS v. young (89 vs. 03), he stayed good and hit his peak in 1996. Roddick's GS was later, but his peak was earlier (2003), but he has been a potential GS finalist/semi-finalist for the 4 years after that. I think that their games, whilst so different, are similar in that they are both young man's games - Chang because of the running, Roddick because of the reliance on power and the relative lack of a plan B.

I don't think Roddick has much to look forward to by the standards of his career so far apart, perhaps, from an Indian Summer when he might have a good GS run, or possibly pick up another TMS. I admire him because he is nothing if not a trier, he has born Fed's dominance over him with good humour but has not given up. He's earning decent money, and he's still better than most out there, so keep going I say.

I am sure his life is not too bad - it's his fans who should be tearing their hair out if they want him to win another GS.

I mean how do you teach an old dog new tricks?Sounds cruel,but sometimes there are things some players are able to do by instinct.

How many times does Roddick need to be passed down his backhand wing before he learns how not to hit a crosscourt approach?

Nothing in Roddick's game except his serve looks natural.He's effectively painting by numbers and not making brushstrokes on his own canvas so to speak.

The game of tennis is really in a transition at the moment with younger more skillful players cueing up behind him to usurp his ranking.

I seriously believe that Andy's days in the top10 will be over by the middle of next season.

I agree with this. Seemingly nowadays with Roddick its all about the grind, almost as if he has to work twice as hard to be half as good. IMO, there's just nothing devastating in his arsenal anymore. Of course he still has the big serve, but it's not that varied and good returners expose it more often than not these days.

Today against Kolschreiber, it was so evident that Roddick can be outplayed from the baseline nowadays by bigger, more strident hitters. In 2003/05, people would've laughed at that, but today he was predominatly just a counterpuncher. The power hitting that everyone used to describe his game wasnt there. Just safe, defensive and ineffectual topspin. Kolschreiber could just dictate all day long on the baseline, because there was so little depth and accuracy coming from Roddick. No threat essentially off the ground.

To be fair, he has attempted to expand his variety, mainly on the slice backhand and on his volleys, but it still seems so laboured and static. Like someone said before, Roddick's game isnt really that natural and the technique isnt there to compensate. It always seems that his progress happens, but at a much slower rate than players ike Nadal and Djokovic, and a result are well ahead of him now.

Also i think his relationship with Connors has given him some dellusions of grandeur quite honestly. He seems to think that due to Connors legacy, it will naturally bleed into his game. That's not really realistic when you think of how succesful Connors was, and how unlikely it would be for him to achieve half of those achievments. Roddick might have connors as his coach, but it doesnt mean his future is nessecarily bright because of it. It's all about himself and he needs to realise that.

No doubt he'll keep fighting for the titles and the futile attempts to upsurp Federer, but i feel the ship is sailing for andy. maybe he'll prove me wrong, but i'm pretty sure he wont.

Roddick's post-match interview:

Q. Tough one, Andy. Talk about how you're feeling.

ANDY RODDICK: No, yeah, it's rough. You know, you play a match that long, you come out the wrong end, it doesn't feel good.

You know, I'm trying to think of a new and exciting way to say that. But, I don't know, it's not good. It's not fun.

Q. His level was pretty high, though. Except for the second set, especially on his own service games, pretty good.

ANDY RODDICK: "Pretty good" is an understatement. I don't know that I've ever seen him play like that before, especially serving-wise. You know, it's unfortunate.

Q. Have you ever played that well and lost?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah.

Q. The various things that annoyed you during the match, was that emotion that you were able to feed off or do you think it took away from what you were trying to do?

ANDY RODDICK: I don't think it had anything to do with it. I came out and served aces after I got mad at his little section. If anything, I needed something to get inside of me. It was a long time between me talking to the umpire and when the match actually finished.

I think it was pretty insignificant.

Q. It was quite a bit steamier in there than it's been for other matches. Was it tough to stay alert, a hundred percent? You looked like you were sweating buckets.

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I was. I have like a sweating problem. It's been a real problem in my personal life.

But, I mean, it's what I do. I don't know how to prevent that really. You know, it's tough to keep fluids in you. But, you know, so be it. Thanks, dad.

Q. Did 2003 go through your mind at all?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I thought about it.

Q. When did you think about it? In the fifth?

ANDY RODDICK: About 3-2 in the first set.

Q. Can you give a view on what happened when he first had a match point and called the challenge.

ANDY RODDICK: I thought he played a shot and then maybe searched around and then challenged. I thought he played a shot. You know, his shot was obviously going out. So I was just trying to get my point across that he had played a shot.

I said, It's irrelevant whether he hit one more shot, you know, if I felt like he was going to miss that one.

I could have been right or I could have been wrong. Would have been an idiot at least to not put that seed in the umpire's mind at that point, right?

Q. You tried a lot of ways to get into his service games. Especially the last set, seemed like you were climbing uphill the whole time trying to get the ball back in play, and then he was dictating pretty quickly.

ANDY RODDICK: Is that a question or are you having like a monologue here?

Q. No. I don't need to monologue. I'm just asking how you approach.

ANDY RODDICK: I agree with what you said. I don't know -- I guess that's the best way for me to answer that. Yeah, you're right.

Q. Was he that hard to read service-wise? He was hitting lines.

ANDY RODDICK: You show me what serve he wasn't hitting tonight, what serve he was favoring. He wasn't really favoring a serve. He was going flat out wide, on the deuce, on the ad side. He was hitting his slice serves around pretty well. He moving his second serves around pretty well.

I promise you, if there had been a pattern, four hours later, I would have gotten to it somehow - at least I'd like to think so.

Q. Hindsight is always 20/20, but anything you would have done different if you had it to do all over?

ANDY RODDICK: You know, I don't really know. You can say, you know, you want to try to step in a little more to control the points. But when he's kind of swinging from the hips on the first ball, I don't know if I had two feet set all night.

You know, so I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I'd probably have to think about it more. But right now, you know, if you look at the stats of the match, and you look at first-serve percentages, 42 aces, three double-faults, 79 winners, 24 errors, you know.

Q. 104 winners.

ANDY RODDICK: I was talking about me, not him. And he had 33 errors also. I'm aware of that.

I guess there's something you could always think that you would do differently, or maybe I'll just make something up to make myself feel better.

Bottom line is it was pretty high tennis from both of us, I think.

Q. Do you feel a little on a rollercoaster after this fantastic Davis Cup win and now this one?

ANDY RODDICK: Yeah, I mean, but that's sports, man. You know, if you don't want like an emotional rollercoaster, if you want to be serene and kind of chilled out all day, then get a job serving Margaritas at the beach or something.

When you decide to be a pro athlete you're going to have ups, you're going to have downs, you're going to have extreme highs and extreme lows. That's just the nature of the beast.

Q. Will you defend the title in the first round in Austria?

ANDY RODDICK: Will I defend the title? Are you asking for a prediction of the tie? Are you asking if I'm going to show up?

Q. Yes.

ANDY RODDICK: Yes, of course I'm going to show up.

Q. Where does that backhand fit in in the hierarchy of backhands in tennis, his shot?

ANDY RODDICK: Hierarchy? Let's call a spade a spade. Let's not put him in the hierarchy of tennis yet.

Q. His backhand.

ANDY RODDICK: Let's let him get into the quarterfinal of a slam before we put him in the hierarchy of tennis. No disrespect, but I mean...

Q. Well, let's go tonight.

ANDY RODDICK: Tonight he was great. There's no doubt about it. Tonight he was, you know -- I took his best stuff for five sets and I thought I was going to get him to break or to fold. I thought if I kept it on him long enough that that would happen.

Tonight he played like a great, great player. There's no doubt about that. And tonight his backhand was extremely impressive.

Q. Is the disappointment more in the loss, or that you had kind of an up-and-comer just zone on you for that long?

ANDY RODDICK: I think we're the same age, but he's an up-and-comer (laughter).

It's tough because, you know, I think there's definite disappointment in the loss. And I guess if you're given a choice to play well in a loss or play, like, terrible in a loss, you want to choose to play well.

But, you know, that makes it pretty disheartening also. Being pissed off is a lot easier than being disappointed.

Q. Now that you're out, any thoughts about the court? The speed slower than the past? Not quite as advantageous to your game?

ANDY RODDICK: You know, it's a court. I don't know if it's so much the court. I think, you know, the way the balls react to it. When you play with new balls it's like a different surface. Then all of a sudden seven, eight games later, it's just a lot different.

You know, but I guess that's the process that it takes to kind of get the surface you want. I don't know if you're going to get it perfect the first time out. But it is what it is, man. I don't mind the surface. I don't mind the effect that it has. It's just different.