Roddick upset by Isner at US Open
NEW YORK (AP)—Andy Roddick’s U.S. Open is over much sooner than he expected.
Coming off a close-as-could-be loss in the Wimbledon final, Roddick came to Flushing Meadows with a rebuilt game and some serious self-belief. Running into strong-serving, 6-foot-9 American John Isner in the third round proved to be too much to handle.
The 55th-ranked Isner smacked 38 aces to beat the No. 5-seeded Roddick 7-6 (3), 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6 (5) Saturday.
It’s the first time Isner has reached the fourth round at a Grand Slam tournament. Roddick, in contrast, won the 2003 U.S. Open and has been the runner-up at a major four times, most recently at the All England Club in July.
“It’s tough. I mean, I don’t know if I’ve come to a tournament with as much confidence—into a Slam—as I did with this tournament,” Roddick said. “Leaving earlier than I want to.”
His loss marked the first significant upset of Week 1 of the men’s tournament: The men seeded No. 1 through No. 16 were 38-0 before Roddick and Isner stepped on court.
Perhaps what bothered Roddick the most was that he played quite well Saturday.
He broke Isner’s serve twice and was only broken once himself. His groundstrokes were clean, with only 20 unforced errors—32 fewer than Isner. And then there was this little detail: Roddick won 162 points, Isner 155.
But Isner came through in the tiebreakers.
“I mean, there’s a lot that’s out of your hands with the way he plays. I said it before: You can’t really teach 6-9, especially coming down on a serve,” Roddick said. “You try to fight it off as much as you can. Sometimes you can, and sometimes it’s completely out of your hands.”
How did Isner fare so well in such pressure-packed situations?
Particularly against a player, in Roddick, who tends to be as good as it gets in tiebreakers.
“Never panicked. If I lose that match, I have nothing to hang my head about. Played well. Maybe a little bit more the pressure’s on him. He’s expected to do so well here,” Isner said. “Nobody expected me to win.”
Isner—who led Georgia to the 2007 NCAA team tennis championship—lost in the first round at five consecutive major tournaments until this one. He missed three months this season from mid-April to mid-July with mononucleosis, but Saturday’s victory will push him into the top 50 in the rankings.
“I was watching the French Open. I remember how ticked off I was at home,” Isner said. “But I think it might have been a blessing in disguise.”
Now Isner owns his first victory over Roddick in three meetings.
“It’s obviously, hands down, the biggest win of my career. Nothing even compares. To do it at the stage I did it on is pretty spectacular,” Isner said. “But I know I can really do some damage here. So I’m not satisfied just yet.”
Next up is a match against No. 10 Fernando Verdasco of Spain—with a quarterfinal berth at stake.
As for Roddick?
His quest for a second Grand Slam title will have to be postponed until next season.
And this defeat at a major tournament doesn’t feel anything like that 16-14 fifth set against Roger Federer at Wimbledon.
“It’s different. I wasn’t anywhere close to winning this tournament yet,” Roddick said. “There’s not another chance a month and a half away.”
157 Comments
1 - 25 of 157
Report Abuse
O...kaaay......my bad.... .....During the Roddick's match, a commentator and an old man on tv kept mentioning his name that Roddick reminded them Ken, because Ken went to Wimbledon final 4 times, the last one was when he was 40, but couldn't win the Wimbledon title. "Everyone felt sorry for him."
I admit.....then, all I knew about Ken Rosewall was what I read him briefly in Wikipedia after the commentary. lol
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
He was asked whether more people should go to college or not. If we're talking academics here, well of course, and that should be the focus of anyone's development through high school. However, those were not his comments- his were strictly based on tennis.
As for tennis, as a former All American tennis player, I can easily say... "Hell No!" Isner says "Querrey is the only guy to come from high school straight to the pros, but he's the exception". Let's look at a few other examples: Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Courier, Roddick, Ginepri , none of these can even spell college!. This obviously doesn't include the other hundreds of men who have sucessfully made it to the pros from other countries without going to "US college" or to any college for that matter.
Let me clarify, tennis was named the 2nd hardest sport to make it in after boxing (although that seems like another DOn King fiasco:). This is mainly because there is 1 tour, and the smaller tournaments pay less than you expenses which you are responsible for.Only a few hundred men make money playing tennis- compare this to any other sport. If you don't make it in the NBA, there's always EUrope, Japan etc where you get paid over $100K to play. Also, when it comes to participation, tennis is 2nd most played national sport (Davis Cup), after soccer- sounds crazy but true. So there are 1000's of new p;ayers each year trying to break into those few spots in the world to make some cashish.
Therefore, I absolutely think most kids should be made aware of this, and using tennis to get an education is a great idea. However, to elude that college tennis is a great stepping stone for the pros....garbage. How about the guy who kicked Isner's ass in the NCAA finals. Guess what, isn't from the US, can;t get sponsors, barely travels and plays tournaments now. I wonder what kind of Doritos he was eating watching Isner play the other night hearing him make that comment:)
Report Abuse
As far as his game, Roddick is a one-dimensional player, and he's continually been exposed as such. He's an above average server, with little to no depth to his game. Like most Americans, his forehand can be the occasional weapon, but not enough to put him with the elite, despite his ranking. His backhand is one of the weakest in the game, he's never learned how to play at the net, and his shot making skills have always been poor. Isner was clearly the more skilled shot maker in the match, and he's no. 55 in the world people. Without the booming serve, Roddick isn't even a Top 20 talent.
For those hoping that Roddick would meet up with Federer and take him down, get real. It wasn't going to happen. Save your arguments about the Wimbledon final, because Roger owns a 19-2 record against Roddick, with one of the two losses coming during his mono recovery.
Too much is made of Roddick's appearances in Grand Slam finals. History shows that the heavy servers are favored on grass, more now than ever given the racquet technology, which in my opinion has made the serve far too instrumental in tennis today. Wimbledon was once dominated by the most skilled net players in the game, Edberg, McEnroe, Becker, not by who can hit the fastest serve.
The USTA has bent over backwards trying to make a Grand Slam champion out of Roddick, but it's a lost cause. Roddick has played more night matches on Ashe than any other player since the stadium was built, even though there were better matches on the card. Even with the favorable treatment, he managed to make it out of the Quarterfinals just twice.
The argument about Roddick's misfortune of playing in an era with Nadal and Federer is lame, considering that Roddick has benefited from playing in this era that has seen racquet technology enhance the serve as the most instrumental shot in the game, allowing less talented players like himself to be more successful than they otherwise would have been.
I'd personally love to see tennis listen to John McEnroe on this one and take a step back in time and make wood racquets mandatory. The skilled shot makers like Federer and Nadal will still be the top dogs in the game, but the game will truly be about skill again. Modern tennis is sadly seeing less and less players in the mold of Fabrice Santoro and Michael Chang, certainly tremendous talents in their own right, because the technology of the game has unfairly made them less relevant. Tennis wasn't always played by giants. There was a time in which the average man could play, and play very well.
Lastly, Doug's comment about Roddick being a gentleman is ridiculous. He stormed off the court after his match with Isner in what has become a sickening routine of pouting. Agassi was a gentleman, and as gracious a loser as he was a winner. Do enough searches on Roddick's behavior on YouTube and you'll see why he disgusts me so much. As I said, he's the only American male I've never been able to bring myself to support.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Why Roddick didn't just slice all his backhands in the important points really frustrated me!
Report Abuse
I would like to see you play tennis.
Report Abuse
It is fair to say that Andy's tennis game lacks brilliance. When his opponent is playing exceptionally well, Andy lacks that "higher gear" to shift into to win anyway. If Andy wants to be #1 he needs more than stamina, he needs great shot making.
Report Abuse
I am tired, and tired of these Idiot fans and sportscasters, and writers like Mike Roggers who keep saying the same crap over and over again.."Oh, Roddick is improving... he is a GREAT player".
Fact: Roddick is NOT improving. He is NOT a great player. With his performance in the Open, he is lucky to make it in the Top Ten. Look up the definition of improvement and you will see a photo of Federer. Roddick won ONE sad pathetic tournament this year. Where's the improvement? Roddick has hit rock bottom. Period.
The balding loser lost in the 3rd ROUND of the OPEN.. (think about it, seriously.. think about it) even with all the hype and support.... this retard sucks. 3rd Round.. think about it Roddick fans....
All i heard was "oh Roddick this, Roddick that..." Where is he now? Going out shopping with his friggen Trophy Wife who is probably the reason for his downfall... just look at her, she probably takes a few hours away from his training per day.. Dump HER!
Seriously Fans, you keep talking year after year how Roddick will win another Slam... Let's face the facts, check out his stat sheet, and realize once and for all Roddick has hit the road towards retirement... the guy is Finished.. Period...
the overweight Blake is finished too... h
peace out...
Report Abuse
If one traces the roots of the popularity of American Tennis, it won't take long to reach Jimmy Connors. During Connors' 20 year heyday from early 1970's to early 90's, American Tennis was hearty and robust due to all up and coming players trying to live up to the standard set by James Scott Connors. Connors was not the most talented player ever, but was so successful (5 U.S. Opens, 2 Wimbledons, 1 Aussie) because of his heart, drive, will, and determination. Connors never quit on a point and fought tooth and nail every time out. When Connors retired, the passion left the american game. The worst part is John McEnroe (who admits he learned much about drive and determination from Jimmy) as outspoken as he has always been, seems loathe to call out Blake or Roddick during a broadcast (Gag order, perhaps ?).
It has been said that it is not this size of the Dog in the Fight, but the size of the fight in the Dog. I rest my case.
Report Abuse
Tennis wise, Andy played well against Isner but seemed scared to win. Only he can explain those chokes. Just like the volley he missed to go 2 sets up at Wimbledon. Roger knew the set was lost but rode his luck to win the set, then Set 3 before getting broken again in Set 4. Had Andy won the 2nd set, Roger would have suffered an even worse drubbing than the one Rafa gave him 12 months earlier. All history now.
Although MJ can be a little crass in his responses, I will have to agree that unfortunately, Andy cannot be mentioned in the same sentence as Ken Roswall. His peers are currently Yannick Noah, Michael Chang, Andrés Gómez, Carlos Moya, Albert Costa, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gaston Gaudio, Petr Korda, Thomas Johhanson and Novak Djokovic. There are others, but these players set up stall after he was born.
Isn’t it strange that since his birth, Andy is the ONLY U.S. Open champion to have never won another Slam? Seeing how things stand, I wonder who he’d deep-six to trade places and join the exclusive One-Slam Wonder Club whose current members are Pat Cash, Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek and Goran Ivanisevic.
Report Abuse
roddick is a great tennis player
he already has a hall of fame record
reaching the quarter finals of several big tournaments, winning the US Open, and having an amazing davis cup record
he doesnt feel he has a sense of entitlement
he has been in the top ten most of his career
he works hard, and when he lost wimbledon, he didnt just think he deserved to win, and he waited for US Open
he worked hard, he tried his best, he is a great tennis player, and i hope that he keeps on working hard or even harder in the future
if you tried to do what roddick has done, you would cry, go home, and quit tennis forever
IN THE FIRST YEAR
so shut up
Report Abuse
How can you possibly mention Andy Roddick in the same breathe as Ken Rosewall? Any why would you? Rosewall was a champion who proved it over a number of years and at an advanced age.
What the hell has Roddick done? He was given a slam by US Open organisers and has done nothing of note. His career has been over-hyped. The next great American hope has fallen way short of expectations. Even he would have to be disappointed with his career when he finally retires.
He benefitted from his nationality. He is an over-rated, over-hyped underachiever with a big serve and nothing else.
Why would you insult Ken Rosewall by mentioning him in the same breathe as an under-achieving disappointment like Roddick? I cannot possibly see what they have in common. Rosewall was a tennis champion and a gentleman of the highest order. Roddick is spoilt brat with a sense of entitlement who has done nothing of note in the tennis world.
Report Abuse
Roddick is a one dimensional hack who was given his only grand slam by US Open organisers. His making the Wimbledon final was a fluke. He hasn't won anything of note in over 2 years.
When did he last win a Masters Series event? He makes a living winning lower level tournaments.
Report Abuse
Don' forget that Ken went to Wimbledon final at the age of ...what, 40? You'll be there.
You won't win Wimbledon but everyone feels sorry for ya! "i wanted you win Wimbledon"
Don't hide the bald!! That's your problem, the only problem you have.
As long as you hide the bald, you can't win ANYTHING. ok?
# 131 what does it mean "Andy is trumps on" @#$% face bleached wife or balding with fox eyes?
Report Abuse
I agree with you guys about Roddick. This lucky one slam wonder( Nalbandian handed that semis by choking) will never win any more GS for his entire life! Ten years gone by, Roddick still can not master service returns,volleys and slice.Also the serve he has is not a big deal at all!!!! Starting from 70s Tanner, Ivanovesic,Stitch,Kraijeck,Philloppoussis,Sampras(how many can I name) all had bigger and better serve than him.Larry Stephanki can not play the game for him.As good as a coach Larry is,he can not fix Roddick's choking habit.Roddick does not have the calibar to be up there.So give credit to Isner and he did'nt win his match by luck,he took chances,played aggressive and had guts to play the big points aggressively.Where as Roddick played defensively with wishfull thinking -depending Isner will make mistakes!
This one for Roddick fans,
Roddick choked on a high backhand volley in the 2nd set tiebreaker against Federer at Wimbledon and Federer took advantage to turn the game around to win the match. Roddick choked again recenthy against this country man Querry at Cincy. This time was an easy forehand volley in the tiebreaker and Querry beat Roddick in straight sets! These are just to name a few. Just remember that record would not show how close was Riddick in winning 2009 wimbledon.It would only say that Federer won.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Here is my personal proverbs:
What makes your life your own is the quantity of your own "why" questions.(too mathematical but the best one to say what I want to say)
Everything you believe in life belongs to others if the answer does not belong to you. ( My favorite)
In another words, your share what defines you comes from your original questions of why.
Those who ask why find their own way.
Those who listen to preach fails to ask why.
The child comes to world with a cry.
That is the first rebellious act.
Then the first amendment rights come his way.
But only if he is taught to ask: why.
Education is two edge weapon if children is not trained to ask why.
Those who oppose to any idea or action without answering why are stubborns.
Let get back to tennis.
He hits the ball. Has he ever asked why he hit it like that but not the other way around.
That creates the original tennis player.
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
i'd like to say reading ur comment posted here is interesting & enjoyable. cuz ur knowledge of tennis is amazing. however, once U r talking....., wow, it wud b incredible. hopefully U can show ur wisdom all the time to the readers.
.....................................................................................
bad luck for andy or not? i doubted. so many bad luck expressed as excuse for losses, that might hinder him from figuring out what the practical & real causes had led him to loss. mental weakness popping up at crucial moments; lacking subtleness or variety; still not good at net-game; depending on his service games too much to neglect the technique of return of service???!!!
despite the fact that a lot of people do not think andy would b successful anymore, if he can try his best to find out the real factors of loss rather than expressing his confidence blindly, i think he still has opportunity to climb up to the peak. that's cuz "every why has a wherefore"!
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
1 - 25 of 157