Andy Roddick was a victim of Roger Federer's existence, says Florent Serra
Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, affectionately nicknamed the 'Big 3' for their stellar on-court achievements, have a plethora of records to their name.
The trio are the three all-time Grand Slam title leaders, having garnered 20, 19 and 17 Grand Slam titles respectively. Even in the Masters 1000 series introduced in 1990, Rafael Nadal (35), Novak Djokovic (34) and Roger Federer (28) are the three most prolific winners; nobody else has more than 17.
With over 250 match wins in Grand Slams and 350 in Masters 1000 tournaments each, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have established a stranglehold over the biggest tournaments in men's tennis. Their dominance can be gauged from the fact that since the 2005 Australian Open, only once (2014 US Open - Marin Cilic beat Kei Nishikori) has a Slam final not featured one of the three.
In the second part of the episode titled "What if the Big 3 had not existed" on TennisBreakNews, former French players Rodolphe Gilbert and Florent Serra pondered how the absence of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic would have impacted the career of Andy Roddick in particular.
Serra believes that Roddick suffered greatly following the advent of Roger Federer on the Grand Slam scene. The former French player said that Roger Federer's success, coupled with the general slowing down of surfaces, robbed Andy Roddick of several Wimbledon and US Open titles.
“Andy Roddick was not only the victim of the emergence of Roger Federer but also of the general slowdown in surfaces," Serra said. "He was a powerful and complete player (a little weaker on the backhand side anyway) who, with his quality of service, should have won Wimbledon and the US Open several times if the surfaces had not slowed down."
Roger Federer owned Andy Roddick in their head-to-head, especially at Grand Slam tournaments. Roger Federer won four of his 20 Grand Slam titles - 2004-05 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open, 2009 Wimbledon - at the expense of the big-serving American.
The Swiss legend was even more ruthless against Andy Roddick opponent in the pair's four other Grand Slam meetings. He beat Roddick at Wimbledon 2003, the Australian Open 2007, the US Open 2007 and the Australian Open 2009 without dropping a set.
Roger Federer destroyed Andy Roddick's ambitions of catching up with Pete Sampras: Florent Serra
Serra believes that if not for Roger Federer, Andy Roddick would have had a more successful career and won a few more Grand Slam titles than the one he eventually ended up with.
"It is certain that his record against Federer shows how the Swiss has destroyed all possibilities for him to make a huge career and catch up with Pete Sampras," Serra said.
The former French player also added that notwithstanding Andy Roddick's lopsided 3-21 head-to-head against Roger Federer, the American had the ability to lock horns with the Big 3. That is evident in the American's fairly competitive 4-5 head-to-head record against 17-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic.
"When we look at his record against Djokovic for example (5 wins to 4 for Roddick), we realize that he really had the level to compete with the Big 3 even if between 2007 and 2012, the Serb was not still at its best."
Serra also credited the Big 3 of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic for popularizing tennis through their enticing rivalries with each other.
"Without the Big 3, we would certainly have had a more unpredictable circuit, with more suspense on the tournaments but that is not to say that the circuit would have been more interesting. Tennis fans love rivalries. So without the Big 3, we would have had suspense but would we have had such outstanding rivalries? I doubt."
The former French player concluded by saying that Roger Federer and his other Big 3 colleagues' domination of the circuit has meant that there is less diversity in Grand Slam winners. That in turn has led to sustained spectator interest in the sport.
"The circuit would certainly have been more unpredictable but would not have been more attractive without the Big 3, in my opinion. I do not think that the true enthusiasts get tired of this domination of the Big 3. Maybe a new audience would have arrived if multiple players from different countries had won Grand Slams."