By the time you’re reading this, there will be a men’s champion at Wimbledon. The two finalists, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick, are each hoping to win the title for very different reasons. A win for Federer gives him 15
By the time you’re reading this, there will be a men’s champion at Wimbledon. The two finalists, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick, are each hoping to win the title for very different reasons.
A win for Federer gives him 15 Grand Slam championships, the most of any men’s player in the sport’s storied history. It adds another bulletpoint to the ever-growing list of accolades that may signify his being considered the greatest player of all time.
A win for Roddick would be the greatest achievement of his impressive career, but could also be the match that ultimately sheds the stigma of disappointment that has surrounded him for much of the past decade.
For many on the tour, Roddick’s career numbers would be more than they could ever hope to attain. He has won 27 singles titles. Only Federer and Rafael Nadal have won more among current players.
He finished the 2003 season as the No. 1 ranked player in the world. He is one of just two current players to finish the past seven years ranked in the Top 10 — the other being his opponent on Sunday.
Yet his one Grand Slam victory, the 2003 U.S. Open, which seemed at the time to be a sign of things to come, is now a glaringly lonely number on his resume.
Roddick came up as perhaps the most highly touted young American player in the sport’s history. So to not reach the career Grand Slam totals of the greats who came just before him, i.e. Sampras, Agassi, Courier, makes him appear to be an overall bust.
The truth is that Roddick hit his prime during the worst possible moment: the same time that Federer was reaching his. He’s had to deal with the best player ever beating him to the punch every round.
If you look at what Roddick has achieved instead of what he hasn’t, it tells a slightly different story. He has now reached a very impressive 10 Grand Slam semifinals. Obviously, he eventually lost in eight of the previous nine.
But in six of those eight losses, who was the victor? Mr. Federer.
He has lost three Grand Slam finals. Who did he drop them all to? I’ll give you one hint: His surname rhymes with cheddar-er.
It’s like when Michael Jordan was dominating the NBA. The only time anyone else could win a title during MJ’s prime was when he left for two years to play baseball.
Unfortunately for Roddick, Federer doesn’t seem to be ditching his racquet for a bat any time soon.
In Federer’s absence, Roddick probably would have won at least three or four majors to this point and justified all the praise he received as a junior.
On the other hand, he was actually lucky to win the one he has, avoiding Federer after he was upset by David Nalbandian.
The two have played each other 20 times now throughout their careers.
Roddick has won twice.
It was originally thought of as a potential rivalry, but has developed into what the Yankees-Red Sox “rivalry” was pre-2004. One side constantly winning, the other left shaking its head in frustration.
It’s even more difficult to reverse these types of trends in individual sports. If Federer is just that much better than Roddick, it will take an amazing performance from the American and a sub-par one from the Swiss for the result to be anything other than a repeat of the past.
If Roddick should lose today, it will not be for lack of effort, or preparation, or even skill. It is what is to be expected when competing against the best of all-time.
But the point is that while this is definitely a David vs. Goliath type of encounter, we shouldn’t forget that, in this case, David is still better than almost anyone else out there.
