Why Roddick not Murray is the nearly man of SW19
Roddick - The nearly man of SW19
Also In The News
Thursday, 02, Jul 2009 08:09
James Christie looks at the career of Andy Murray's semi-final opponent Andy Roddick and suggests that the American rather than the Scot might be more deserving of title glory.
There is a growing school of thought that Andy Murray deserves to reach, if not win, this year's Wimbledon final.
After all, his late-night under-the-roof match with Stanislas Wawrinka provided the most memorable moments (and ratings) of the championships.
Add in the fact that he put in such hard labour to win Queen's while Roger Federer prepared for impending fatherhood at home and the argument gathers further pace.
And isn't the fact that only the rain and pesky old Goran Ivanisevic denied Britain an All England triumph in 2001 suggest that these Isles deserve another crack at the title an argument-clincher?
But if anyone wants chastening proof that deserving success and achieving it are two different ball games they need only take a look at the career of the man standing between Murray and Sunday's final.
When Andy Roddick stepped on court for his 2003 Wimbledon semi-final with someone called Roger Federer of Switzerland, it was thought that his powerful serve, boundless energy and celebrity charisma made him the heir apparent of men's tennis.
Six years after straight-sets defeat in that match and he isn't even regarded as being the best man called Andy in the game.
Federer's brilliant play in that match - one particularly superb forehand half-volley made while skipping in the air sticks in the mind - suggested that he, not Roddick would dominate world tennis.
His victories over the American in the 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon finals merely confirmed it.
After the second of these, Sue Barker interviewed Roddick on court and commented how good his rivalry with Federer was for the game. "It's not really much of a rivalry is it?" he responded candidly.
The man nicknamed A-Rod, with his baseball cap and Norman Wisdom-style hyperactivity often seems like the boy-next-door. Federer, who has also beaten him in the US Open Final, seems out of this world in comparison.
Having twice been runner-up at Wimbledon, it would probably be fair to rank Roddick just behind Pat Rafter and Ilie Nastase and alongside Ivan Lendl as the best grass court players never to have had their names inscribed on the tournament's trophy. (Tim Henman, four times a semi-finalist would come in the group just behind him.)
The fact that he has stayed a top ten player even when players like Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have overtaken him and shown the world how to beat Federer, is testament to his drive.
With only a big first serve and a booming forehand to intimidate more multi-dimensional opponents with, it is little wonder that he once described himself as the "the world's best bad player".
But perhaps, he is being a little too modest - he has performed far more consistently than other big beasts of his generation such as Lleyton Hewitt.
Could the Roddick v Murray semi-final be like the Becker v Agassi Wimbledon semi-final of 14 years ago? Agassi was so confident of victory that year that his coach let slip that they hadn't even watched footage of Becker's quarter-final victory.
Agassi, like Murray, was the overwhelming darling of the crowd prior to the tie. He was also seen as the only man left in the draw who could stop the tournament favourite (Pete Sampras) in the final.
Yet Becker recovered from a set down to make the final.
If Roddick were to upset the odds to take on Federer in the final there would be groans from Brits and neutrals alike.
His record against the Swiss star suggests that such a match-up would make a sixth Wimbledon title for Federer almost a formality.
But that's not to say it won't happen. If A-Rod is allowed to get a foothold in the Murray match we could see a Sunday afternoon line-up with as much appeal as another all-Williams Ladies final.
Such an occurrence would be a cruel irony after such an exciting championship.