Tennis News: Andy Roddick doesn’t think Novak Djokovic can catch up with Roger Federer in total Grand Slam wins?

Tennis News: Andy Roddick doesn’t think Novak Djokovic can catch up with Roger Federer in total Grand Slam wins?

Former tennis pro Andy Roddick thinks that Roger Federer’s lead, in total Grand Slam wins, over Novak Djokovic is “significant” though he believes that the latter has the momentum on his side in trying to beat out the Swiss Maestro’s claim to being the “greatest player in the sport.

Roddick was non-committal when asked about which player will take the “GOAT” crown in tennis history.

- Advertisement -

“It’s like wanting to compare movies and having not watched the last 20 percent of the great movies,” Roddick said in a press conference.

“Right now if you just look at numbers, Roger is obviously there. I think five Slams clear (ahead of Djokovic) is significant. But Novak’s obviously trending. He’s the greatest right now.”

ALSO READ: Tennis Hall of Fame Andy Roddick Wimbledon Periscope broadcast challenges future broadcasting norms, comments on Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic

Roddick also added that he’s impressed with Djokovic and the late play in his career that put him in the conversation for being the greatest of all time in the sport.

“Roger will be the first to tell you he’s not currently the best player in the world. So we’re kind of trying to predict the end, which is kind of tough,” Roddick added.

“I think it’s really exciting that it’s a realistic conversation to have. It’s a realistic question to ask: Where do you think he’ll fall in the line-up? It’s a testament to (Djokovic) that he’s kind of forced his way into the conversation.”

Roddick, who has won one Grand Slam title in his career (2003 US Open), is retired from the sport since 2012 but has been playing in some doubles tournament in 2015.

ALSO READ: Roger Federer to retire? No reason to leave sport yet, says Lleyton Hewitt

The race for the greatest in tennis looks like it’s down to Roger Federer, who has a total of 17 Grand Slams while Novak Djokovic has 12 so far in his career. The 34-year-old Federer, who has struggled with injuries this season, is in the twilight of his career while the 29-year-old Djokovic is still in his prime.

  • 1chrisford1

    I think it just won’t matter in another 10 years as more sophisticated analysis replaces the writers and fans that now hew on a lazy “Slam Count” as the sole metric on how good – or great – a star player was. The main problems with it are (1)different levels of competition – Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all had a far tougher competitive environment 2007-2014 than Roger did 2002-07. H2Hs matter. (2) Longevity – Borg retired at 26. (3)Time away from competition due to injury. Being able to play more matches because a player is lucky and free from lost time die to major injury is not a mark of how great a player one who was in better health than the other was. (4) Changes in training. and equipment makes Don Budge’s game in the 30s totally a different sport than Laver played in 1969 which is totally different than the sport played by the Big 4 in 2012. (5)Finally, pro tennis is far bigger than just 4 old major events and Davis Cup. 50 years ago it was fine to talk about Slam Count and Davis Cup wins as the sole metric of ‘greatness’. Not anymore,

    • ARAblr

      I think in Federer’s case sheer talent was not sufficient to win GSs in his first 4-5 yrs of pro tennis. He wanted to win against Sampras to prove to himself but he lost to Henman which he detested. 2002 was frustrating. Likes of Hewits, Roddicks, Phillipposis etc… were still tough to beat. But CONFIDENCE in pro sport makes a huge difference. That’s what happened after Wim ’03. So credit should go to Federer not for the lack of competition. Great example is the SFs of AO and FO in 2005. He was not Djokovic-like against Safin and Nadal but still won next 8 out of 10 Grand slams. For me after 2010 AO Federer is not playing his best. He was not supposed to win 2012 Wimbledon. He won because of his guts and desire/passion. He is still playing because of those two plus the way he plays tennis without hurting knees or wrists too much or some special pills!

    • sreesiddharth

      One could make an argument that Djokovic also had a less competitive environment like the one you say Federer had in his early career. The very fact that a guy in his lower 30s being the best competitor against Djoko is very telling of the competition. Rafa, with his injuries, has virtually checked out of slams for the last 3 years, except for the one French open. Murray isn’t that much of a competition – he can hardly get past a guy that is in his mid 30s. This ‘weak era’ concept is silly because we can’t objectively separate the dominance of Federer from the quality of his competitors, when he wins most of the slams. Moreover, Rafa won his first slam in 2005 and Roger won 13 slams after Rafa’s first slam.

      The same weak era argument could be made for Rafa: Rafa won 9 French opens because he played in a weak era of clay court players. Between 2005 to 2016, there were only 3 players who won the French open, with each winning it only once. See, how stupid that argument sounds?

  • Sergey Kovalev

    Real rich, coming from a guy whose entire career achievements have been passed by half a solitary Novak Djokovic season.