Runner-Up Roddick is no Loser

It wasn't Roger Federer winning his record-setting 15th major title at Wimbledon, his sixth win there in seven years, that fired my imagination Sunday. Federer's win is a great story, and I do love the Rog, as any fan of tennis must.

For me, the story was Andy Roddick playing the match of his life, by far the best tennis that he has ever played. Having watched Roddick through much of his career, I was astonished witnessing how far his game has come.

But what really left an impression on me was that Roddick came into the match believing that he could beat Federer. He came within a hair's breadth of doing so, and was visibly dejected at the end of the match. There was no, "Well, Roger's a great champion and it's an honor to share center court with him, blah blah blah." No, Roddick pushed Federer around at times, and the fact that he came up short hurt him, as it should. If Roddick uses this match in the right way, I have no doubt that major championships are in his future. I've seen Roddick in plenty of big matches with stuff on the line. This was a different Andy Roddick -- determined, gritty.

On numerous occasions playing Federer, Roddick had failed. He had lost 18 out of 20 matches to Federer going in to Sunday's Wimbledon final. But Roddick won the first set, and had a great opportunity to take the second in a tie-break with Federer down 6-2. The Rog battled back, relying on a serve that, given its smooth, easy delivery doesn't seem all that intimidating at first blush, not like Roddick's short, violent stroke. Federer ended the match with more than fifty aces though. His serve was unequivocally the difference. Roddick, despite breaking him in each of the first two sets, could simply not handle it.

Some of the greatest players in the game's history were spectators: Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver, and the man who's record Federer was looking to surpass for major titles in a career -- Pete Sampras. When John McEnroe asked Sampras whether Federer was now the greatest of all time, Sampras was non-committal, but I liked to think that his reluctance to pronounce Federer the greatest was to some degree a function of having witnessed his countryman, Andy Roddick, push Federer to the limit.

Roddick was brilliant. Knowing he was facing the world's best -- maybe the best ever -- he went for winners, and his balls were consistently true. But Federer is a savant, and held serve like a Janissary holds his sword. He could not be bested.

The match was an instant classic. I thought last year's Federer-Nadal final was the best ever. I'm rethinking that. Going forward, this match will hopefully lay the foundation for Roddick to make a run at a U.S. Open Championship, bragging rights that a lot of lusty American tennis fans crave. The man from Austin looked lithe, powerful, and at times he did something I've seen few tennis players do: He ran the Rog all around the court.

Comments

[Noah Deutsch - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for these comments. Regarding Sampras's comments to McEnroe after the match, my point was only that at that moment speaking to Johnny Mac, Sampras did not unequivocally label Federer as the greatest of all time. I think another commenter made a good point that, with Borg and Laver standing right there, this could have been a bit of diplomacy on Pete's part. My idea was that, in being a bit more reserved with his comments at that moment immediately after the match, Pete may have been tipping a subtle nod to Roddick's effort before getting swept up in the wave of Federer-as-greatest-ever pronouncements. Of course, Sampras's very presence at the match, alongside Borg and Laver, was a not-so-subtle passing-of-the-torch gesture to that effect.

[kathismom]

I agree, Andy played like a man possessed. If I remember it correctly, he had not lost his serve/been broken until the very last game.
I would love to see him playing like that all the time. Great, serve and volley, great backhand, drop shots.. he was on!

[jessicadevyn]

It was a fantastic match. It was much more entertaining to watch than the anti-climatic Williams match. I always root for the underdog and was very impressed by Roddick. I don't understand all the negativity he receives. Plus he is very easy on the eyes which doesn't hurt.

[hoosier96]

Actually he came in first place among the losers.

[CEKChuck]

Here here!

[thenextquagmire]

Its a sport..............Anyone who loses is a loser. That's why winners are winners. You can learn a lot from being a loser. Losing is a priviledge...............Don't take that away.

[Shrinath]

Actually, much before McEnroe talked to Pete, a BBC anchor did and Pete, unequivocally acknowledged that, to quote " in my book he is ( the best player ever)" unquote. Roddick played, perhaps the best tennis of his lifetime. Kudos to him. But, don't try to take away the credit where it is due. Roger, today, is the best.

There is a fine line between supporting your fellow countryman and being partial. In this case, it was partial.

[retreadite]

A quote from Sampras was:

What he’s done over the past five years has never, ever been done and probably will never, ever happen again. Regardless if he beats Roddick, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it,” The News of the World quoted Sampras, as saying.

Therefore I don't understand the authors contention:

When John McEnroe asked Sampras whether Federer was now the greatest of all time, Sampras was non-committal, but I liked to think that his reluctance to pronounce Federer the greatest was to some degree a function of having witnessed his countryman, Andy Roddick, push Federer to the limit.


This article is fishy.

[Deuts]

There is nothing in sports better than an underdog rising to the occasion on the biggest possible stage. You hit the nail on the head...Roddick believed that he could be Federer on Sunday. But unlike 'Buster' Douglass or the '07 Giants he came up a little short. In doing so he elevated Federers game and hopefully rejuvenated his career. What a classic match! Great analysis.

[tompoe]

It was also mentioned that had Laver played on in the Open era, how many more championships would he have won.

[tomgtag]

Great commentary on the match, noah deutsch. My impression is that watching roddick over the years he always has fight and a positive attitude. THis time was different because his ground strokes are improved and more consistent, especially his backhand which was also an unexpected weapon.
For me that was the difference in roddick more than his attitude. And I very much agree with you that the winning difference was Federer's incredible serving which I haven't heard any tv sportperson comment on.

I do have a different take on McEnroes "greatest of all time " question, which I thought was a little tactless, unusually so (I like McEnroe). Because it was asked right in front of Laver and Borg, two great champions, I thought Pete was put on the spot and it may have affected Sampras' answer.

[TRYKER]

Noah, thanks for the nice comments on Roddick. Wow...that was such a match, I've never seen Andy do better. It was such a let down when he didn't win...but he sure didn't lose. He made a million new fans around the world with that great display of heart and physical energy.
I stewed for hours after the match and then my rational head said...he has to beat Roger to win, duh, and Roger had to play just as hard a match to win, even if it didn't look like he was putting it all-in like Andy was doing.
After some cross country commiserating calls where we all held out hope for a Win at the US Open, I accepted defeat and was humbled. For sure, Andy has major wins in his future, I hope he hangs in there with his health.