A thought.

[clo_again]

How Andy Roddick plays tennis - good or bad for tennis as a whole? The commentators are saying that some people aren't big fans, citing the not exactly fascinating final against fellow big server Karlovic at Queens but... to me it doesn't matter how he wins - aside from cheating of course - as long as he wins. Sure it'd be nice to see Federer-esque rallies and volleys flying off his racquet every now and then but that just isn't Andy and that doesn't make his tennis any 'less worthy' than Roger's or Coria's.

Yes he relies on his serve way too much. Sometimes I'd like to sit in the audience and throw some of those giant novelty tennis balls at him with 'STRATEGY IS YOUR FRIEND' scribbled over them until he gets the hint. Maybe he'd beat Roger more often if he had a game plan. Right now he's flattening poor Coria, so I don't much care.

There are three people dressed as wombles sitting in the audience. Am very amused. *giggles* Though I have to wonder how they got the costumes past security.

Clo

Comments

[tasheila.livejournal.com]

When Andy was shorter, he used to do volleys and such. Then he got taller, and had to get used to the power. I hate it when the commentators pretend he can't play tennis. It's a bit like Sharapova, who is also a bit one-dimensional, but at least they try.

No argument from here

[deppprived.livejournal.com]

I like the fact that Andy doesn't play like Roger and vice versa. It does make tennis more interesting. In fact, I think they could do very well together in the doubles division. With Andy's serve and Roger's strategy, they could be very dangerous.

[clo.livejournal.com]

Really? Wow. I hate it too, since he really *can*. Frankly I think he just beats himself mentally half the time and it's his serve that gets him out of it. *pets her pretty, one-dimensional tennis players* Not everyone can do everything. I love watching Andy play just how he is.

[clo.livejournal.com]

*nods* Especially since half of them were never as good as Andy is. *giggles* We should write to the BBC and point that out. I love it too - it was the opposites that first attracted me too them. And this afternoon it was fascinating to watch Andy's match then Roger's right after - the difference between the shots they could make and the shots they went for was amazing. If everyone played like Roger then we'd have a tour full of number ones and how boring would that be?

*pets Andy* We love you just the way you are sweetie. Don't change. Except maybe you could beat Roger occasionally. That'd be nice.

Re: No argument from here

[clo.livejournal.com]

... You know, I'd never even considered them playing doubles together but you're absolutely right. They'd be unbelievably good. *ponders in shock* I would absolutely love to see that, even just from a tennis point of view. Wow.

[tasheila.livejournal.com]

One-dimensional people are hot anyway. ;)

And yeah, the serve is supposd to be the best shot, except he rushes it a bit. My aunt (who loves Sampras and hates Roger cos she dosn't want Roger to beat Sampras's record, hee) says that Sampras had good serves, not cos of the power, but placement. Andy dosn't tend to think about placement much, which is a good skill to have when it comes to second serves.

[clo.livejournal.com]

Mmmmmm. This is true. Andy can be one-dimensional any day when he's that hot. *licks him*

*nods* I'm looking for him to be thinking about placement a little more now, though I was too busy screaming insults and bribes at him today when he lost those two sets. Get off the stupid pills Roddick! He really seems to be thinking hard about his game right now though, which makes me happy with him. He's trying new things.

I just wish he wouldn't do it in a match against Grosjean who he could beat quite happily with his 'old' game. -_-