Afternoon, Pete.

I'm always baffled by those who fail to accord respect to Roddick. One of the very top tier of the Open Era? Probably not. Top five in the last decade? Without a doubt.

He had a pretty good August 2003, doing the Montreal/Cincinnati double (d Federer in Montreal SF) then winning the US Open, in what was (I believe) his longest win streak to date.

For the most part, the current ATP favors defense over offense, and Roddick has patiently retooled his game in response. The very top rung (Federer, Nadal) belongs to those whose offense is built on top of superb defense, but superb defense plus those serves (not just bombs, slice and kick) isn't a bad calling card either.

Thank you, Pete.

I also admire Roddick's determination but I cannot say that I've waited a long time to see him win Wimbledon. Not until Federer says: "Enough".
Stefanki is a good strategist and Andy has improved his game a lot with his advice but it isn't getting any easier to conquer the grass. I wish Andy well though. His off court persona is very likable.

Nice thoughts, Pete. I agree with almost everything. Not sure why Roddick doesn't set himself higher goals on clay. His grinding baseline style should translate very well to that surface. It's probably also a good opportunity for him to work on attacking, as he may have a few extra instants to get inside the baseline on shorter balls. I often feel that he lets the play come to him too much on the faster courts. Anyway, he's made SF in Rome, and played a good match against Monfils in RG last year. Perhaps it's just ppl constantly telling him that he's gonna suck on clay that makes him set lower expecations.

"Quickness may not be Andy's greatest asset, but it isn't nearly as much of a determining factor on clay as faster surfaces. The court speed may take a little away from Andy's serve, but it will also provide him with extra time -"

WOW! I cannot tell you how many times I have written the same thing vis a vi not so fast big serving players on not so fast surfaces. Truly, great minds. lol.

Andrew - I think it is important to note that one person who NEVER failed to "accord respect to Roddick," was Federer. There was often a lot of eye rolling here when Fed would make some pr-match comment about how dangerous an opponent he considered Andy to be. Given the H2H, that may be somewhat understandable, but what was getting over looked was that only the guys on the court really knew how tough...how close..those matches were. Just like Wimby and several USO matches, even when the score didn't necessarily reflect that.

[I've waited a long time to see Roddick win Wimbledon, and I believe he's going to do it, if not this year, then the next. If not then, then sometime.]

i'm experiencing deja vu here.

Anyway, my fed fanishness aside, I'd really love for Roddick to win that one Wimbledon.

You cannot be top 10 or is it top 5 for so long just having a serve, case in point Karlovich. Andy is an odd mix, essentially he is baseline grinder. Baseline grinders are from the clay courts of Europe and have an OK to bad serve. Andy however has a howitzer of a serve which can keep going the whole match. People think that he can bang in the serve take the short ball or the volley and finish it off and then just wait to break the other guys serve. Not so with Andy because he loves to grind it out. He has been on the circuit for a decade and only good things are said about him by the players and the fans, so he must be a good guy. I am sure he will win Wimby, the slice backhand will help him win that.

This get better with re-reading actually. If Andy is like certain kinds of dogs and horses, Roger, is all cat.

Very interesting to hear Andy's thought on his time with Connors. I guess you are right, a lot of people did dismiss it as a 'failure,' but obviously Andy feels he accrued benefits from it. Stefanki seems like a great coach, period. Like he could get the best out of anyone...well, maybe except for Rios.

In your paragraph about Andy "keeping it real," I couldn't help think a little about the infamous 'Andy and his mojo' ads that aired leading up to an especially awful US Open run. And AmeEx campaign? The double irony was how GOOD Andy was in those commercials.

***waves at Sher***

Thanks Pete, I remember Andy in the days of Hewitt and I was of the opinion then who is this brash American guy with the big serve.Well in ways Roddick has come the full circle.He is still in the top 10 after of those years.Which is a credit to him.Andy played his "best tennis" in Wimbledon 09,alas it just wasnt enough against Roger.He has always been a hard worker.His commitment to DC over the years is another plus for Andy.

I think Stefanki is a blessing in disguise for Andy.Lets sit back and see the further results Andy can achieve.

yes, roddick's a team player, but roger isnt. i guess the mark of a team player is being on lots of different teams. roger has stuck with more or less the same team through thick and thin, they've been the bedrock of his success...his davis cup record is stellar...he's won gold in doubles...he is without a coach, but he has never been solo.

yeah! very nice read about RAndy - though I too am partial :) I just told my boss monday that I think Andy's going to do really well on clay this year. He thinks I'm crazy (which I may be) but I'm sticking to my guns! There's just NO reason the american hard courters can't do well on clay.

And every time I see Andy drive that 2 handed bh cc - or up the line I say "thank you jimmy", every time i see the slice - I say "thank you Larry!"

Andy has put so much hard work into his game its great to see it finally paying off. It took a hail of a lot of passing shots going by and stoned volleys, but I no longer have my heart in my mouth when Andy approaches net. OK - so maybe i still instinctively yelp 'NOOOOO' but I'm trying to get over that... :)

A few years back I remember thinking that Roddick seemed distracted by the show business elements of tennis. He spent a lot of time doing things for the crowd: throwing and flipping rackets, shouting witty things at his opponent (often a more focused Federer) at or after key moments. Often his competitiveness would disintegrate after that, like he was scoring his own points for laughs.

He also seemed to enjoy the media. There was that famous Q&A after he was lambasted in the US Open a few years back by Federer when a UK reporter asked him if he thought his performance on the mic was better than on the court, and he said "no sh*t," or something to that effect. More laughs. Again, it seemed like the stage time was enough.

I wouldn't say that any more. I not sure what it's attributable to. Pull out the cliches: he's more mature, he's interested in legacy - whatever - he's simply more focused on the tennis, and not distracted by theatrics. He's now less fun to watch, but more interesting.

"and you know that slice will squat down nice and low on clay"

Hmm.. I don't think that's true. The slice tends to sit up on clay. However, a good dropshot with a lot of backspin can be effective, mostly because it takes a bit longer to push off on the loose surface if you are positioned way behind the baseline.

Well done, Pete. A thoroughly enjoyable read. (Is it only because I agree? Nah, I don't think so.)

A nice historical thread running underneath the All American angle to the Roddick story is his connection, via Stefanki, to a legendary tennis coach of the all-court American game: Tom Stow.

Although I've never been partial to Roddick's style of play, i've always rather liked and admired his determination and surprising wit, and would be happy to see him finally crown his career with a deserved Wimbledon title.

But not before Federer has at least 9.

Tho' I don't enjoy watching Andy (fell asleep during the final, sorry Andy!), I'm genuinely happy for him for his recent success. Good for him for making some changes, but the real news for him is that Roger's going down a bit has given him some breathing room. If RF were still at his best, he'd have faced Andy in the QF of IW and probably won, and who knows how confident or in what form Andy would have been going into Miami.

Truth is, success breads success. I also think Andy's run of good form in the last 2 tourneys puts a bit of perspective on our whole obsession w/ players injuries. Andy complained before IW that his shoulder hurt, his knee hurt, he was playing bad. Then the draw opened, got some good wins, all of a sudden he's flying and on top of the world . .

Pete, thanks for giving Andy his due. It seems he's worked incredibly hard to advance his game and he deserves to reap the rewards.

I had hoped last year was Andy's Wimbledon year but like you I think (hope) he will get it done this year (or next).

:-)

Great stuff, Pete. I'm in the top 3% of your fan club.

I've been won over by Roddick in a major way. In the past I always used to say that Andy's on court antics were so assholian that it obscured his off court wonderful personality. These days I'm liking him on the court as well. I can't tell if that's because I've changed or he has.

Pete your analytics are mostly right on target as evidenced in this great article. However, I can't wait for you to fess up and admit you were purposelly using awful logic with your Fed-French-Asterisk talk. I know it! Becuase there is NO WAY you would apply the same logic to Fed's Grand Slam. You simply would never say that his Grand Slam has an asterisk even though you logic demands you do so. You were having fun, admit it :)

Great post Bring Back Jets. I too noticed that as the humor and antics drained out of Andy's game, seems that his focus has improved. He's still funny and fan-friendly, but mostly after the match.

nice article about Andy , Pete
enjoyed reading it
I , for one, have great respect for Andy these days, and I did not always have it . Sometimes his boorish behavior on court really disgusted me , much like rooruffneck said above .But lately , I do think he has matured . And he has clearly put in the hours of work to improve his game and it is paying off. So I am happy for him in that and enjoying watching him play more and more.
I will be even happier if he can win that elusive Wimbledon title. Any time , any year . I just want him to have one . I think he deserves it after coming so heartbreakingly close last year.

That's agreat article about Roddick, Pete.
No doubt, he could have enjoyed the life he had (it was a pretty good one, if you ask me), keep winning a lot of matches on the tour, and live in that confort zone. But he wants more, i think he wants to prove he can win another major, and i think he will do it. His only problem, of course, is the same as always: Roger Federer. But Fed might have a bad day at some point (the guy has to be human, right?), and Andy will be ready, i'm sure about that. And i dont know id there would be anybody who has worked for for it.

As for the clay, i think there are a couple of other characteristics of his game that will be very useful there. First, his consistency. The guy makes very few UFEs. Less than most players. And that's always good on clay. And with his improved fitness, he's able to defend reasonably well. The serve might not be as effective, but it's still a weapon. He's never gonna be Nadal, but there's no reason why he cant have good results on clay.

Maybe i'm influenced by the fact that i havent watched as many Andy matches as the American public, but i have always found the guy to be a good sportsman, and quite honest on court. It looks to me that he's respected and even liked by his peers. He has his outburst towards the umpires, true, but i dont think it's anything those guys cant take.
Heck, the guy managed to get a Spanish Davis Cup crowd to chant his name during a match (of course, it helped that he was losing, but still). If i know us, that's not easy to get when you are an opponent.

Unfortunately history sometimes deals players a tough hand. Roddick is the first long term number one American to also not be a long term number one player in the world in the open era. It is a line that includes Stan Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, and Agassi.

Roddick was number 1 for nine weeks before Federer basically took over. What would Roddick's career have been like if he had not been dealt the "Federer" card? Impossible to say.

Its a tough era when arguably the third most consistent challenger for major titles is thought of as a member of some sort of "second tier" player.

As CL noted the one person who never underestimated Andy is Federer. I remember at the 09 AO Roger gave the media a little lecture about how Andy deserves more credit than he's given for sticking at the top for so long and for being always dangerous.

I think Roddick's serve is the most consistently outstanding, but that when Federer is serving at his best his serve is the greatest.

I've waited a long time to see Roddick win Wimbledon, and I believe he's going to do it, if not this year, then the next. If not then, then sometime.

+1 - I have been waiting for this; I hope it will come through
Pete; thank you very much for this write up about roddick; I will bookmark; good articles about Andy are far in between

Roddick had the bad luck to play when Roger and Rafa dominated, this is very true. But there is more to it, I think over time his big serve that was such a huge part of his game was less effective against players. Also, the one dimensional aspect of his baseline game was also a problem, but I notices that recently he's starting to come to net more. I still feel that he was certainly good for more than one slam, and with Roger having problems, he might get it. Go Justine! Go Caro, Scandinavia's#1!

Pete
Thank you for a wonderful piece on one of my favorite players. I agree completely with everything you have stated - I am very partial to Andy too and I really hope that he can win another grand slam one of these days. Hats off to him.

I've always been a big fan of Andy, at least of the man, if not always the game. One thing I still don't understand is where the putaway forehand went over the years. Maybe I'm just rewriting history, but back in his USO-winning days, I could swear the forehand was flatter and more intimidating. I didn't see much of the Nadal and Berdych matches last week, but I heard this forehand made an appearance. Good for Andy, but I'd still like to hear more about this issue.

Sherlock, a while ago (IIRC at Oz last year), Stefanki said that Roddick had acquired a "bug" in his fh technique. He often plays with too wide open a stance, and as a result, arms it and isn't able to put too much torque into it. In general, he moves reactively rather than proactively. Several instances where he hits a good shot, draws a shorter ball (say inside service box), but he's already retreated three feet behind the baseline rather than staying on or inside it. Most of the time, he's willing to come in only if he gets a short slice. Perhaps his reflexes/comfort zone is a tad slower than it needs to be in order to attack from inside the baseline.

Interesting, Pspace. Thanks. That makes me hopeful we might see more of the aggressive forehand in the future.

Roddick has come to the net a lot in past -- but on poor approach shots. I guess using a good second serve as an approach shot, as he did to surprise Rafa, could be interesting. He also played some nice positional play from defensive position. That is, he was able to get the ball to a position where he could not be attacked when he was in a defensive position.

I think his issue is still the same as it has been in the years past -- namely the #1 guy in the world. And his second problem is the guy who could be the next big thing (Delpo). Both these guys are able to absorb Roddick's serves bettr than others. He has shown that he can beat the others (may be not so much Rafa --- but he now seems be playing better or at par with Djokovic and Murray).

Good article, Pete. I hope Roddick wins Wimbledon this year unless Federer wins the French (then I'll be cheering for the CYGS). Totally deserves it, just like Ivanisevic...

Hope to see more aggression from him though. The spinny forehand may keep him in the top 10 but isn't going to win him the big ones.

Thank you for a terrific analysis of Roddick, Pete. There are many great moments in here, my favorite being: "I think Andy is a realist, and an honest man, traits encapsulated by his oddly touching interruption of Roger Federer's victory speech at Wimbledon last year (he objected when Federer expressed sympathy for Roddick's plight, reminding Roger that he'd already won five titles). Roddick tends to let you know what he's thinking, and that's not always the case with public figures." Beautiful! And so true.

It reminds me of when a British journo, interviewing Roddick after he defeated Murray at Wimbledon, asked him whether the fact many people had underestimated him had given him a little bit more motivation to win. "No," Roddick said flatly. "I've been guilty of many things in my career but not trying hard isn't one of them." Again, it's the frank self-deprecation, and self-assessment, that's so refreshing.

One thing -- I wonder if Roddick resisted the hype partly because he couldn't in good conscience subscribe to it. That "mojo" ad is still a source of embarrassment to him, a recent article said. Maybe a combination of fate and character have kept Roddick's head a normal size? But something tells me he would have been down to earth
and self-deprecating anyway. One thing's for sure -- no gold-edged cruise director jacket for him.

Great article Pete, thank-you.

Roddick excelled in March coz Roger, Rafael, Novak, Murray, and the rest of the top ten were in absenti or not in their top form. If these guys start grinding again, Andy will be in the middle of the pack again.

pogiako: you are so right!

he looks like Popeye in that pic

One sign of the smarter Roddick: he'll probably never play a practice set ever again against Roger Federer. That single-handedly ensured Roddick's demolition at Federer's hands in 2007 at the Australian Open.

"Roddick excelled in March coz Roger, Rafael, Novak, Murray, and the rest of the top ten were in absenti or not in their top form."

pogiako (and wilson75 who endorsed the above sentiment): I suppose, then, that I may assume, then that you were not among those folk who got various items of their underwear in a twist when Pete pointed out that Roger's chances of winning FO '09 were greatly enhanced by the absence late in the draw of a certain multi-time winner of the FO. If so, good for you! Consistency, though boring, is very important, y'know! :)

Good article. I've long admired Roddick's resolve and resistance to complacency. And I'd love to see him finally bag a Wimby. Now that Fed finally has his FO, no one will have earned a Slam more than if Roddick prevails at the All-England Club. And yes, interested to see how he does in Paris too. Wouldn't be surprised if he made a QF appearence depending on his draw.

"Roddick excelled in March coz Roger, Rafael, Novak, Murray, and the rest of the top ten were in absenti or not in their top form"

yes, maybe he did, so?? And maybe Nadal won Wimbledon 2008 coz Roger was weak from mono and maybe Roger won FO 2009 coz Rafa's weak knees lost him the match against Soderling.

Whats the point?

First time I've agreed with Bodo in ages. You can't not cheer for the Andy Roddick of today. I was antagonistic toward him in the past mostly due to ESPN always showing his matches (which don't always consist of the most 'interesting' tennis) over other players. But I can't think of anyone else I want to see win a Slam right now (other than, perhaps, Dementieva, whoo boy).

Glad Pete brought up that moment in the Fed victory speech last year - I was ashamed for Federer and his moment of delusion, which was pretty insulting to Andy, along with that atrocious and pompous jacket. As tennismagazine said, Roddick was the better player that day, and Fed got lucky in the 2nd set tiebreak and also had the champion's fortune of having the best serving match of his life when the rest of his game was middling.

Also agree with the poster that Roddick's point ending forehand needs to make more regular, if select, appearances. It beat Rafa, it's what got him back in to the AO Cilic match from 2 sets down. I wrote previously that Andy's poor court sense is his biggest weakness - relates to knowing when to come in to finish a point, esp around the net.

I actually think he's a very decent volleyer, but his approach shots, net position and anticipation let him down more often than not. I've also seen headscratching moments were a passing shot appears to be within reach and he doesn't even make a move for it. Puzzling for sure. Does he not have a winning record against Djokovic?

Pete,
I've been a Roddick fan since I accidentally turned the tv to the 2003 US Open final and saw Andy's emotional win.
Thank you for the wonderful article.

Yup, just checked. 4-2 head to head Roddick over Djokovic. Now there's a player I can't help but like, but against Andy the determination factor really casts Novak in a pale light...

Ruth and Nam1
Well said!!!

"Roddick was the better player that day"

How come he won fewer points in that match then?

"Fed got lucky in the 2nd set tiebreak"

Roddick was also lucky that Federer missed a line by a whisker at 5-5 in the first set and threw away 4 BPs in that game before getting broken in the next one.

Stewart@9:51 -- good post. I'd also add that Roddick will always be hampered a bit by his heavy feet. Yes, Stafanki's influence and Roddick's own hard work have improved his movement, but he'll never be in Fed's, Rafa's, Nole's and Muzz's class in that department. Nothing to be ashamed of there, and his improved defense and more consistent baseline game have made his game less predictable. But as you acknowledged and C1 originally mentioned, he mustn't forget that big FH against the top players. Also liked his S&V approach against Rafa, though one probably can't make a living off it.

Ruth: I'm still waiting for Pete to put the asterisk next to Roddick's win. You can't call for me to be consistent and not Pete.

Yes, even I like the game of Andy Roddick today. He is quite an honest guy, realist etc. In the past, I used to not like his lunch-bucket game, useless topsin, bad court sense, gimme backhand and over reliance on power.

But, I am more than impressed with his transformation and even root for him now.

One thing I used to not like with him, was his tendency to be nice and submissive to players like Fed/Rafa, but lord over players whom he thought were below his league and act like a school bully in a very crass way (I guess he must have felt he needs to do whatever it takes to win ugly - after all he had Brad and Connors as his coaches then).

But Stefanki seems to have brought some class also to the guy. I dont see such things recently.

All in all, great stuff. And now I dont even feel like Bodo is overtly pushing the American national sentiment with this post.

See, a bit of class and acting nice can go a long way for this country!

Nice article by Peter Bodo, but the main thing I agree with, is his own coach's assertion:

"A guy with a weapon like Andy has, and so raw in every other aspect except perhaps the forehand"

He made some progress, but still lacks savy.
And yes ESPN shows too many of his matches alas.

"I suppose, then, that I may assume, then that you were not among those folk who got various items of their underwear in a twist when Pete pointed out that Roger's chances of winning FO '09 were greatly enhanced by the absence late in the draw of a certain multi-time winner of the FO."

Ruth-- I can't speak for the poster you are specifically addressing here (and I myself would not have made the claim s/he made about Roddick), but I think some of us were annoyed when Pete wrote as if Nadal weren't even in the draw at all in RG '09. I think it's one thing to say that Federer's chances of winning RG last year were greatly enhanced by Nadal's poor performance in the tournament. One would have to be truly delusional to think that a top-of-his-game Rafa wouldn't have presented 10 times the challenge a vaguely star-struck Soderling did. But it's another thing to say the win deserves an asterisk, as Pete has on more than one occasion (though I suspect for for the purpose of feather-ruffling then as a real argument). I never hear this brought up when people talk about Agassi's RG win and resulting career slam. Who was that he beat again?

Roddick deserves absolute credit for his high performance and correspondingly good results this last month. He's played consistent top-notch tennis when his rivals, for whatever reasons, did not. Federer deserves absolute credit for his win at RG last year for the same reason (and to Pete's credit, he has also made it clear that he feels the pressure Federer faced after Nadal's loss was immense).

I've always loved Andy's wit and obvious smarts. Wish he wasn't so snotty to the ump's but nobody's perfect. It would have been lovely if he'd won wimby last year. He came so close. So very close. I'd love to see him win a Wimby in the future and I think he's got the game to do it.

Better late than never Pete. I'm another one who doesn't particularly like Andy's game but I think he prolly deserves to have won more than one gs. I can't see him winning Wimbledon but maybe the USO.

I think him teaming up with Larry and getting marrying to Brooklyn has definitely helped Andy mature and find his game again.

I've always sensed tha you have a good deal of respect, even admiration, for Roddick, Pete. And I think this post demonstrates that clearly.

I agree that Roddick is a team player at heart. Wouldn't he have made a great college player?

I think Gilbert showed him how he could use his biggest weapons to fullest advantage, and to challenge anyone to deny them.

Connors helped him develop one solid, dependable backhand down the line. And just by his interest in Andy, surely gave him a confidence boost when he needed it most.

Stefanki seems to be more interested in developing a tactical approach to winning for Andy, using his big weapons more intelligently.

His slice, while better than ever, will not slide through the clay court unless he gets his full weight behind it and moving forward, which he is prone to do on a hard court or fast surface. I suspect that will be the shot that he strugles with most on the clay this season -- come in or stay back? He should trust his instincts and get to the net often. If nothing else, it will prepare hinm well for another shot at the Wimbledon title -- his fourth, I believe.

Just let the record speak for itsel folks :

Roddick a "Top 5 of the last decade" when he finished there only 3 times in his career so far? NOT without a doubt when Safin, Hewitt, Davydenko and even an old Agassi have done the same or better during the 2000's and he already has been passed over at only 27 by much younger players like Djokovic, Murray and DelPotro before 2010.

Roddick is definitely a career Top 10 player as his record clearly shows, but let's not get carried away about so-called "decades" which don't mean a damn thing in tennis history here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Roddick_career_statistics

I'm all for giving huge kudos to Roddick...I was incredibly impressed with his Nadal match. Some of those forehands were Delpotroesque and had me thinking "where the heck has THAT shot been the last 7 years?"

But reading this post had me thinking "where the heck has Bodo been the last 7 years?"

This in no way describes Roddick:
"...since he's never been risk averse, you can count on him to finish points, or at least try to end them emphatically."

This is more accurate:
"My comfort zone of moving the ball around and maybe chipping it around a little bit..."

That's why Federer/Nadal were killing him, because he tries that spinny, move-the-ball around junk, or worse, chips and approaches on a wing & a prayer. I would love it if he truly adopts the solid risk averse, point-finishing style we just saw for a few sets in Miami (and a little at Wimbledon.) But to appreciate how wonderfully he just played, we need to honestly assess what he had been doing up until recently.

Nice piece Pete

This site should change its name to williamsroddick.com. The continuing puff pieces on the three of them make me wonder if this site has a certain "leaning" to players from a certain country.

I used to hate Roddick's game. Big serve, big forehand and precious little else. I felt incredibly sorry for him in last year's Wimbledon final, where he probably played the match of his career. Though a Fed fan I ended up rooting for him in that fifth set. One bad volley cost him the match, essentially and of course the fact he was playing Fed. I used to dislike watching him, but that is now a thing of the past. While he will never play beautiful tennis he is now playing intelligent highly watchable stuff. The sheer intelligence of his game is a delight to behold. He deserves to win another GS before his career is out, purely because he has applied himself to playing a form of tennis that beats very good players. He is very fit, his backhand is technically now very solid and his slice is a revelation. He hit one slice v Berdych that was a delight, low and hard and generally wonderful. He probably hit more great slices than that one shot but it stood out, especially as it was on a big point. This article puts far better than I can how much he has developed as a player. Here is hoping he wins at least one more slam.

Nice article Pete. Roddick has always been one of my favorite players. I definitely agree that he's getting more mature and plays a lot smarter than before. Admittedly I feel although he's got a pretty smart brain, he's been kind of a slow learner with tennis. Like he can't translate the sharp wit to physical co-ordination as easily as Federer, his great nemesis.

So much has changed for Roddick:

In the old days
- His serve always looked jerky and power based - with relatively little variety and compared to Fed, not quite as good placement. Which made them marginally easier to return (and tennis win/lose is often the slimmest of margins - a few key points decide)
- His volleys were woeful
- His approach shots and timing/smoothness of approach were bad
- His backhand was pretty average
- His forehand (see his 1st Wimby final with Fed, 1st two sets looked like he could blast Fed off the court with it) was a monstrous beast that I thought might be the hardest hit I have ever seen
- His strategy/focus were pretty average

Today (hmm there's a Sampras comparison evolving for me here)
- Serve showing more variety - and clever use of that (i.e. example of "cleverly using your variety" would be if you never use the slice halfway up the wide until a crucial break point. Samp had this thing where he served for most of the match in one place, then on a key point, BANG in the other place. Much better than evenly distributing your various serves thru the match, because the surprise element is less on the key points. Always thought Samp's serve was much more effective than Roddick but now Roddick is moving towards what I think his goal should be)
- Volleys improving altho sadly he will never be one of the best there (a shame when his serve is so good. This is a big diff between him and Samp - the record tells the story. I suspect with a better volley, Roddick would have won that close Wimby and possibly others. By contrast, Sampras is so much more solid at the net)
- Approach is getting slightly better but still room to improve. Again as "not a natural volleyer" this part is never gonna be brilliant but he works hard and seems to have finally got a bit more comfortable moving forward and knocking off the volleys
- Backhand - finally, more consistent and varied. In the past his rallying was so predictable and Fed just KNEW what to do against him. I think depending on the type of clay, the slice can die/stay low so could be useful. Different types of slice shots behave differently too. I make a distinction between the "drive slice" which moves fast and the "underspun" slice where the racket is more under the ball, the ball "floats" more. There's also the sidespun slice which bounces outward once it drops. The guys with good slices can work out which is going to work best on a particular court, and execute it.
- Forehand - he went thru (in my view) a rather conservative phase where he didn't unleash the power. Just rallying and losing worse to Fed (and some others) than ever before. Like he didn't trust his big shot any more. It appears he's come round to a good balance of the solid consiervative rally forehand, the power forehand that pushes the agenda a bit (which a lot of the guys these days use as their normal rally shot), and the full rip.
- Strategy/Focus - I like what I see. I don't think he will ever be the master strategist/tactician that Roger is, but you can see a range of different strategies and tactics used from match to match against various opponents. Some players don't need a range of games and essentially play the same game all the time (Samp, and to a large degree Fed altho Fed has been criticised for being stubborn on this and losing to e.g. DelPo at US because of it. Fed has the capability for sure, to play a range of different games). But Roddick's talent isn't as over the top as Samp and Fed, he SHOULD develop the strategies. Effective ones vs different people can be:
1) Go for it. Belt the ball hard, take risks (vs a Nadal), do some volleying to throw off the guy's return game (i.e. he won't know what to expect, if you vary that)
2) Grind/rally topspin
3) Patient. Including slice (that's how he won this final)
Then there's the added sophistication of having a strategy that varies the gears during the match. That would REALLY make an opponent confused :) But very hard to do this as even us tennis club hacks know. If you've spent the 1st set playing patient, and lost it, it's very very hard to switch to belting without hitting a lot of errors as you settle into the different groove. To switch the groove from point to point or within a point is even harder. Which is why you often see even the pros hit a ridiculously bad drop shot into the net - the change-up is really hard to do.

Oh and let me say, I wanted Roddick to win Wimby last time. I really hope he gets it this time. I don't think Fed actually had as much of a say in it last time as someone above thought. (something was said along the lines of Andy's only chance is when Fed says enough). Actually I think Andy lost it with his flubbed volley early on, and a slight loss in focus in the final set, and whoomph the chance is gone. I don't know if he can bring that A+ game again this year but let's hope so. Maybe even an A++ game with the slice and a slightly better volley. And maybe Fed is just a touch slower and more vulnerable than last year (he hasn't looked wonderful lately, but I count on him playing well at slams)

Roddick is a great player, and a top notch guy to boot.

He has made vast improvements to his game, notably his backhand (slice or hit), his tactical approach to the game (more variations), and his willingness to take the net. He also moves better on the court now that he has dropped a few pounds.

For all of this, and his sheer determination to become a more complete player, I take my hat off.

But I still don't see him performing well on clay, and the reason for that is his footwork. He doesn't glide naturally on clay like players who have grown on the surface. Unless he has made drastic improvements in this department compared to previous years, the fear is that he keeps going there with his typical hard court player footwork, and pay the price by exiting tournaments early.

Good article, Pete. I was never a Roddick fan until I saw a documentary with him, from his home. It showed what hard working, down to earth, relaxed kind of guy he really is. He has the determination and the smarts to understand the game, understand the trends in matches and adapt properly. Roddick is an intelligent player. He uses his skills to the best and is never lazy, always eager to fight back and a very level-headed person, seeing the match objectively at all times.

I think determination and tennis intelligence are two of the most important talents, definitely more important than just shot-making. Only Federer has it all, that is why he is number one.

"I don't think Fed actually had as much of a say in it last time as someone above thought. (something was said along the lines of Andy's only chance is when Fed says enough)"

Ubertennisfan,
I was the one who said something about "enough" but kindly read my post again (2nd one after Andrew).

Anyway, you've given yourself the answer: "And maybe Fed is just a touch slower and more vulnerable than last year (he hasn't looked wonderful lately, but I count on him playing well at slams)"

If Roger keeps playing well at GS and specially at Wimbledon, I give him more chances to win that trophy than I'll ever give to the "improved" Andy. But so many things can happen during those two weeks that Andy could reach the final and Roger isn't on the other side of the court. Andy must then rise to the occassion and seize it. And I will be extremely happy for him!

Myskina, "As for the youngsters I can't name anyone but Wozniaki." Hmmm! The most talented, no doubt.

As for Roddick doing an Agassi, yes it's possible, but I'm not sure it's all in his hands. When Federer takes the court and plays at his best, I don't believe the match is in Roddick's hand because Roger has a better game. On clay, Rafa has a better game. Roger is only one year older than Roddick and Rafa is younger, so unless there a vast decline in their game, I'm not sure Roddick gets six more slam which he would need to equal Agassi. Also, given Isner's proven ability to beat him (USO) he may have what kept Agassi from winning more slam(Sampras) another American on his back.

Sad news: Martina Navratilova has breast cancer.

http://tinyurl.com/ydykv3z

Well said. I have a very improved feeling and opinion about Andy over the last few years. I do think a major part of his improvement is a result of the weight loss of nearly 15 lbs, a significant factor when you are already a world class athlete. That along with the maturity and determination give us an admirable human being and champion!

Very sad news indeed:(..Wishing Martina a speedy recovery.She's a strong woman,if anyone can beat it,she can.

I'm glad andy won.I'm tired of federer winning everything . At one time federer had a 26 match winning streak over americans,,ended by marty fish.I don't want to see another streak started

After buying Roddick's racquet, I can see why he used to retreat to the baseline. It's not for volleying.

Love this article!

I'm sure there is a better picture of Andy available.

Hi Pete, very nice post, thank you.
I hope you are right about Roddick doing better in the next few years. Not so sure about Wimbledon, but in any case that wouldn't reveal any "blind spot in your analytical abilities". Predicting the future is very difficult, and failing to do it successfully is normal --it is just the rule, not the exception.
Roddick has played very solid matches recently. He doesn't have a killer weapon other than his service, but a controlled agression has done the trick (so controlled it often looks defensive playing: the other day Roddick had done hardly a forehand winner by the time Nadal had done about 15, but the match went to Roddick anyway).
Clearly Roddick owns some interesting personality and work ethics; I just wish he also had some more "niceness ethics" when treating linespeople et al. Niceness ethics certainly looks much easier to implement than work ethics, to start with...
And I want to finish by saying once again that I love his off-court sense of humor, like when he said something like "I knew the stats were in my favor: nobody has ever beaten me 13 times in a row" with regard to the last time he finally beat Federer.

Mr.X, yes, I also remember the Spanish Davis Cup crowd chanting "Rooodick, Rooodick" --it was nice, and there was no irony in it even if he was losing.

those last three paragraphs read like one of the best fan letters ever. Clay is a different beast, I don't think Roddick moves well enough on it to do well and sustain his current momentum. He's probably aware of this and probably won't get bummed out if he doesn't continue his recent run of results.

Minutes after Andy put the finishing touches on the Miami final, I posted at TW that I was going to put the RAndy Wimbledon bus into the shop for its annual overall so that I could be properly prepared to repeat my duties as driver of the Roddick Wimbledon 2010 bus. I also added that I wouldn't mind having a few wins on clay before then.

However, I am now changing my tune and joining my very perceptive and optimistic fellow TWiber, jb, in expecting and hoping for more than "a few wins" during the clay court season.

Go, Andy!

I have always felt Roddick could do well on clay too. He's got good spin on his forehand and 2nd serves and most importantly he can grind.

With regard to Wimbledon, similar to Federer at the French, he can win it if Federer is not in the final. Recall when Federer said he knew Rafa couldn't always be in the final. I have a feeling Federer's finals appearance run ends this year or next so let's hope Roddick is there to take advantage. I'd love to see him win it.

My impression was that Roddick could hit shots but didn't know how to play the game. In his knowledge of tennis strategy he has been like a high schooler.

Andy Roddick is the Jim Courier of his generation... the lunch-pail buckle down competent player who puts in his time. Jim Courier once said, "There are many types of talent, and one them is the ability to focus and work hard." This describes Roddick perfectly.

With that said, I'm not so sure about Stefanski. Stefanski ruined Fernando Gonzalez with that slice. Roddick trimming his weight is probably good.

I think the time is right for Roddick to finally get that second major. Just like when a few years ago when Nadal was improving steadily and getting closer (figured it was just a matter of time) to taking Fed's Wimbledon crown, I sense Roddick's time has come. With his improved game and gained experience through difficult setbacks (including last year's 16-14 fifth set heartbreaker), I believe Roddick will finally win that Wimbledon title this summer. It would be great for him and for the sport. Roddick is to Federer as Goran Ivanisevic was to Pete Sampras. Goran finally got that Wimbledon title after three finals losses (similar to Roddick), two of them against Sampras, by beating Rafter in 2001. How emotional was that?! Similarly, for Roddick to win the Big W this summer - especially if he were to beat Fed in the final - would be yet another one of those moving moments that makes tennis the great sport that it is. I hope it happens.

Disagree with C$.....Roddick can win Wimbledon by beating Federer. He was as close as you can get last year and, given the state of his game now, he has enough to get over the hump.

I certainly admire Roddick's work ethic. However, I wonder what took him so long (seven, eight or however many years into his pro career) to figure out that losing 10-15 pounds would be beneficial for his game.

I was late to get on the Roddick bus, but now I am fully on board. It has less to do with his valiant Wimbledon final last year, though, and more to do with the recent interview he gave to Richard Evans. I always thought he was just a bratty punk, and didn't think much about his marriage to some swimsuit model I'd never heard of before. He spoke so respectfully of his wife and of Agassi in that interview, I am now a huge fan - and I, too, am looking for a belated but worthy "Ivanisevic" for him.

Martina says she's already had her lumpectomy and will undergo follow-up radiation while she's working for Tennis Channel at Roland Garros. If I, a non-athlete, got through radiation with no fatigue, she'll be fine.

Petes current post is having the same type pad problems again

I am getting a sign saying "This post dosent belong here"

Mornin' folks

Wow more bad news, Rockin' Robin and Delpo out of MC, so not fair.

Also big hugs to Tina. Glad to know Martina's cancer is not so threatening and I am sure she will attack it like she did her tennis, full on.

I think I will just post here because Pete's post is not working. Ok now I have to go to the doctors for a radiology apt. See you all soon.

AA Good luck with your radoilogy apt.My prayers are always with you.

I never cheer for Roddick. I cannot tolerate his horrible behavior that the tennis world forgives in him and penalizes in others.The Brisbane tirade of his at the umpire deserved a fine and of course, unlike Serena, he got a pass. That is always the case. Will the American tennis establishment stop shoving this obnoxious man down our throats? The fans are not enamored with him, despite the USTA crowd wishing otherwise

If Andy Griffith lost in the 5th set last year at W, and he is better now, then he figures to have a good chance again, right?

somehow I think that if Roddick wins Wimby without beating Roger along the way, there will ne no asterisks next to his name ... but its a VERY similar if not exact scenario to Rog and Rafa at WImby, no? 4 heartbreaking losses to the eventual winner, no?

somehow I think Pete will give Andy a glowing review (asterisk free) even if he beats Mardy Fish in the final :)

Wouldn't the theme song from the Andy Griffith Show make a good cheer for Roddick?

So for some word play (anagrams),

Team USA debates long and hard about the Wayne Odesnik issue and decides thus:

See no kind way. Disown Yankee.

(Thanks to whitelinefever for the inspiration.)

I'm copying this post from the Hardcourt Confidential thread since it's broken:

GB: thanks for all that rafa info. "some discomfort" sounds way better than what we've aGll been fearing. So I'm cautiously optimistic that he'll repeat last years season and then go a few rounds better at RG!

Pete: your new book sounds like the tennis version of one of my all-times faves, "Adventures in the Screen Trade" by William Goldman. He wrote the screenplays to great movies like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "All the President's Men." The book was just anecdotes and stories and it was a great read. "Hardcourt Confidential" sounds like the same ilk. Are you going to be able to update it right
up to press time? In case there are any WOW stories in the next couple of months?

JohnP: very good point about Andy meeting Fed again in a wimby final. their last final was so close it really could have gone either way. So this year, if we get repeat I'm hoping Andy will have the edge. Seeing Roddick lift that wimby trophy after all the years and hard work would be a thrill!

GH: i'm not exactly sure what an anagram is. The letters in those words can be rearranged to say something else?

Tim, the scenario would be similar but there's one BIG difference. The final's scoreline. Andy went 5 with Fed, toe to toe the whole way. That's very different from 2, 0 and l. crucial difference there imo. But having said that, any player who gets to the wimby final without going through Fed is very very lucky. However, your mileage may vary*

*hi Andrew!

Nadal fans never learn their lesson.....I did last year, after years of asking the same question you are still asking "why does he plays Rotterdam? Why does he play Barcelona knowing full well there are two MS events, RG, Queens and SW19 coming up?

When everything is said and done, history will remember Rafa and especially his stupid uncle as the "what if".....similar to Borg but for totally different reasons.

The signs were there in 2005, still in 2010 HE HASN'T CHANGE a thing about his schedule, the main culprit....especially the hardcourts including mandatory MS events.

It's obvious his knee hurt......he is not injure but the constant pain is there which limits his mind. The real Nadal doesn't lose three big matches after dominating the first set in a span of 3 months.....say whatever you want to say about his opponent; "old" Rafa would have won at least two of those matches.

The clay season will show once and for all what I'm saying.......he will play MC and probably win, fly to Barcelona and probably win to then go to Rome with no rest and compete against fresh competition.....probably injuring himself in the process; if he happens to survive three consecutive weeks of grueling claycourt tennis.....Madrid will be the final nail. All this is avoidable.......skip Barcelona and rest between MC and Rome.....or go for the trio and skip Madrid to use three weeks of "rest" before RG.......but this Tony Nadal....and he is not reasonable men nor he cares for his pupil knees.

Nadal knees are at the critical point where he should skip almost every HC event with the exception of AO, UO and a warming leading up to those events! Anything more will destroy what it is an already bleak future.

Hi Annie. Sorry if that was a bit obscure.

"See no kind way" and "Disown Yankee" both rearrange to "Wayne Odesnik".

huntingyou: that was a really good post but it would have been nice if you hadn't started it with "Nadal fans never learn their lesson" since that's not really the point. It's more like "Rafa never learns his lesson" - we're just his fans who want to see him play. that's all. You are not the first person to suggest that rafa basically not play on Hard courts anymore. Another poster recommended the same remedy but how would that impact his rankings etc if he didn't show up for, what? 6 of the 9 reguired masters series tournaments? When 60% of the season is played on hard courts how can he pull this off? the answer is he can't. He'd want to play the Open and AO and he'd want to play warm ups for those. So he plays Cincy and Toronto. the thing is, he is a tennis player. This is what he does. And they do it on hard courts the majority of the time.

FWIW: I think he's going to do the MC, Rome, Barca triple and skip Madrid. As someone posted earlier, Madrid is a lousy warmup to Paris anyway. he's better off resting.

Has anyone wondered whether Wayne Obelisk is a dealer/provider of HGH to other players? Side job as it were. since he didn't test positive himself.