Originally Posted by Chris "Italia"
Can Roddick defeat Roger?
I don't think so, and I definitely hope not.
Roddick is bad for tennis. Sure, I'm supposed to support the Americans and all, but Roddick is very bad for tennis. If you look at Roddick, he has an unparalleled serve, a slightly above-average forehand and an awful backhand and volleys (not to mention footwork, patience, strategy, sportsmanship, etc etc...). But the worst thing about him is that until very recently, he had not improved any facet of his game since becoming a pro. And to me, a person like that shouldn't win, let alone dominate at the highest levels of tennis (this is why I also hope Serena rededicates herself and comes back stronger).
If you have a good tennis memory, you may remember a time when Federer was a brash kid with a temper who would melt down at the slightest provocation when he was beginning pro. You may also remember that James Blake was just another NCAA champion trying to maintain an ATP tour card. Now, Federer is considered (and certainly looks) unbeatable and one of the coolest heads in the game. Blake now has one of the best forehands in the game and his backhand is getting better every day. These are pros who have made their games much better through hard work and dedication. Until Roddick comes back with more than his serve to rely on to get him out of trouble, he does not deserve to win. I'm happy that he's working on his backhand and other facets of his game, but I certainly do not think it's good for tennis for someone who hasn't significantly improved in six years of being a pro (relative to his peers, that is) to be winning grand slams. That is bad for tennis.