I'm not crying you're crying!!! ...well ok I'm crying too

miss you ANDY watching you since junior US CHAMPION

A grand slam, number one in the world, 32 ATP titles, Davis Cup win with 33 individual wins second only to John McEnroe. 5 grand slam finals and qualified for year end ATP Finals on several occasions. Over $20 million in prize money and top 10 player for 9 straight years. So yeah…

And a lot more talented than all of us here. Andy was great, he never exaggerated his ability, which is what made him special.

So was Stan Wawrinka, what's your point?

@@abhireddy2552 that Andy Roddick was a SCRUB.

@@Lawrence_619 You said that already in another comment.

That Roger, he was everywhere! Bad era. Otherwise, Andy would have won a couple of grand slams!

I think he is HOF worthy but definitely not first ballot

If i remember correctly, Andy won more titles on the tour than any other player besides the big four (counting the active players). For example he has double the amount of single titles than Stan Wawrinka... which is very remarkable in my opinion. Plus he had tough luck to play those finals in grand slams against Roger, who always had his number. In the End he may be not one of the best players of all time, but surely HOF worthy imo.

@@RandyOrton92 you sound delusional. "Won more titles than anyone on tour besides the big 4"?...how long have you been watching professional tennis?...and you need to clarify what a "big four" is.

​@@Lawrence_619 As I said, counting the active players. Maybe i should be more clear and said "active players he played while he was active" if that makes more sence. I did not mean in history of course. Roddick won 32 single titles on tour (which is 11 more than Jim Courier btw). No Gonzales, Blake, Nalbandian, Safin, Ferrer, etc... won more titles than Roddick. With big 4 i mean Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray. They surpassed him of course. Adressing your question about how long i've been watching professional tennis - about 24 years.

@@RandyOrton92 since when, did 'bad luck' against Federer, give someone like Roddick, a pass, regarding how many grand slams he should or shouldn't have won?...the HoF, SHOULD BE, an assignment that is replete with those who have won MUTLTIPLE GRAND SLAMS. Nor should it be an designation for those who "won more tennis tournaments" outside of the 'bi four' as you called it. Talk about watering down something.