OUR FANHOUSE TOOLBAR INTEGRATES THE LATEST SPORTS NEWS INTO YOUR WEB BROWSER AND INSTALLS IN SECONDS.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE TOOLBAR HERE.

Tennis

The Ghost of Roddick Past Strikes

Posted Sep 05, 2009 11:40PM By Greg Couch (RSS feed)

Filed Under: U.S. Open, ATP

Text SizeAAA
NEW YORK -- This one is going to hurt more than Wimbledon. Andy Roddick said he didn't know what it would mean, not yet, not just 25 minutes after losing to John Isner Saturday night in the third round of the U.S. Open.

You fall way behind, two sets to love, and then courageously fight all the way back, never give up, get the momentum, and then in the end, the crucial fifth-set tiebreaker ...

You lose.

That was the night. Was it Roddick's career? The New Andy Roddick has been playing much better, but in the end, he's still not winning the big ones. It seemed like a matter of time.

And then this.

This one hurts in the moment, but also in the long run.

"I don't know yet," Roddick said. "I'm not able to digest yet."

He lost to Isner 7-6 (7-3), 6-3, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6 (7-5), and all that hard work to change everything officially ended without a major in 2009.

It's going to be interesting to see how Roddick does digest this. When he lost to Roger Federer in the classic Wimbledon final, 16-14 in the fifth set, you saw the pain deep in Roddick's eyes.

He had spent his career playing, basically, dumb as a light post. He had the huge serve and nice forehand and would never give up momentum. And when tennis was all smash and bash, that was good enough to be No. 1.

But he had no backhand, little foot speed and a game with zero variety. And he didn't bother to change any of it, so the top of the game simply passed him by.

Well, you know the story. He took another look at himself, changed coaches, lost weight, developed a backhand, started mixing up his game, coming to the net.

He revamped everything. And when he lost to Federer so emotionally, some people felt it would crush him to come so far and leave with nothing.

That was wrong. He left with plenty. And he found all summer that everywhere he went, fans had started loving him for finally waking up and making the most of his big talent. Tennis fans, people in the coffee shops. His mailman.

But what does he leave New York with? Yes, he fought hard again. But there were expectations now. Some people, me included, picked him to win the tournament.

And it's one thing to lose a classic Wimbledon final against a player most people consider the greatest player of all time. It's another to lose in the third round of a tournament you thought you could win.

To a guy who has seen you as a mentor. A guy ranked No. 55.

A guy who was playing a minor-league event outside of Chicago while you were at Wimbledon.
"That's just the way it is sometimes," Roddick said. "That's the thing with sports: There's not always a good reason for it."
A guy you have never lost to.

A guy Roddick should beat.

"I wasn't anywhere close to winning this tournament yet," he said. "You know, it's a different breed. There's not another chance [at a major] a month and a half away."

Tennis was counting on Roddick here. The men's game is reaching a new level, and Roddick has come with it this time. But popularity in the U.S. requires an American champion.

So what happened?

Well, dumb Andy returned. That's what it looked like. But truth is, it's more complicated than that.

Isner is 6-foot-9 with a massive serve, decent hands at the net and not much else. In some ways, Isner, who had 38 aces, plays like old Roddick, only not as good.

But when you play a guy like that, it is impossible to get into a rhythm. The challenge is to figure out how to construct points.

It left Roddick with no variety. So I asked him if that was because of Isner's style?

"Yeah, I mean, there's a lot out of your hands with the way he plays," Roddick said. "I said it before, you can't really teach 6-9, especially coming down on a serve.

"You try to fight it of as much as you can."

All of that is true. When you play a guy like Isner, he always has a puncher's chance. You get few chances, and have to take advantage of them ...

At the same time, Isner, who's 24, doesn't beat a lot of top players. This was his biggest win.

Roddick should have beaten him.
Follow Greg Couch
"The fact that I was able to make a quarterfinal last year and I was playing just terrible, [and] didn't make it past the third round this year, that's just the way it is sometimes," Roddick said. "That's the thing with sports: There's not always a good reason for it."

So how will Roddick digest this? He might try to talk himself into the idea that losing to Isner is losing to a gimmick, not to a tennis player.

But I think he's going to feel that this was a lot of work for a painful loss to a lesser player.

Roddick is 27 now, and the truth is, he's still far better player than he was at 26, with far more people approving. But will he see that? Can he see from the majors how much more respectable he has become?

"Not yet," he said. "Not yet."

Maybe never.

Email me at gregcouch09@aol.com

Tags: andy+roddick, john+isner

Related Articles

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?

Greg Couch

Greg CouchGreg Couch is a national columnist and award-winning tennis writer for FanHouse.com. A former ranked amateur tennis player, who dabbled in a few pro tournaments, he came to FanHouse after 12 years at the Chicago Sun-Times. "The best tennis writer in America," according to Jason Whitlock, national columnist and guest host of the Jim Rome radio show.

MOST COMMENTED