Andy Roddick was number 1 in the ATP rankings from November 3, 2003 to February 1, 2004, for a total of 13 weeks. In his long career, the American player has won 32 titles, including one Grand Slam tournament, the US Open 2003, and 5 Masters Series/Masters 1000 tournaments.
There is no doubt that Roger Federer prevented him from winning many other titles. Federer and Andy Roddick played 24 times, and Federer leads their head-to-head 21–3. Roddick lost his No. 1 ranking to Federer after Federer won his first Australian Open in 2004.
Their rivalry includes four Grand Slam event finals, three at Wimbledon and one at the US Open, all won by Federer. Roddick himself said it was not much of a rivalry, being so one-sided. In the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddick lost to Federer in five sets.
The match included a 30-game fifth set (a Grand Slam final record) and lasted over four hours. In the final game of the deciding set, Roddick's serve was broken for the first time in the match. With that victory, Federer broke Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles, and Roddick apologised to Sampras (who was in attendance) for not being able to stop Federer.
In the second part of the episode titled "What if the Big 3 had not existed" on TennisBreakNews, Florent Serra believes that Roddick suffered greatly following the advent of Roger Federer on the Grand Slam scene.
Serra on the rivalry between Federer and Roddick
“Andy Roddick was not only the victim of the emergence of Roger Federer but also of the general slowdown in surfaces," Florent 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.
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 added. "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.
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 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" - he concluded.