A-Rod the Subject of Dueling Scribes

So I've already weighed in on my thoughts on A-Rod.  In short, I think he's an underachiever who has never taken that extra step to fully exploit his potential. 

Sandra Harwitt over at ESPN.com, disagrees.  She thinks he's an overachiever:

It could be said that if it weren't for Roger Federer, Andy Roddick could be displaying at least three Grand Slam trophies at home instead of being a guy with only one major victory.

So what?

Why does the No. 7 Roddick get a bum rap when he has proved to be a hard-working, dedicated player who readily accepts challenges? Certainly, his curriculum vitae is plumped up by 26 career titles -- a figure that includes the 2003 U.S. Open title, three additional Grand Slam final appearances, a leadership medal for guiding the U.S. to the 2007 Davis Cup title -- and he is likely to finish the year in the top 10 for the seventh consecutive year.

It should be noted that all three times he lost in Grand Slam finals -- 2004 and '05 Wimbledon, '06 U.S. Open -- he lost to then-world No. 1 Roger Federer, a guy dangerously close, as in one title away, from equaling Pete Sampras' Grand Slam title record of 14.

But Matt Cronin over at TennisReporters.net, disagrees with his good buddy Sandra:

Speaking Of Roddick, that was some defense of his career that my friend Sandy Harwitt wrote on ESPN. Ginger Roddick must have dropped a large pair of rose-colored sunglasses by Sandy's Boca Raton pool on her way to the foundation offices. Here's one of my favorite lines: "The fact that some pundits around the game take a look at Roddick at 27 and declare him disappointing is considered ludicrous by more compassionate souls." Ludicrous? Here's an emotionless comparison: Before Federer (BC is you like) Pete Sampras was considered the greatest ever by many, and still is by some. Sampras won 14 Slams, but during his era, two of his main rivals, Andre Agassi and Jim Courier, still managed to win eight and four majors respectively. Roddick has only won one and was not stopped in every Slam he played since winning the '03 US Open by Federer. In fact, early this year, the Aussie Open final featured Novak Djokovic and Tsonga. Do you remember who Roddick lost to? Kohlschreiber, who as far as I can see, is not Boris Becker in the making. I'm a big fan of Sandy's both personally and professionally, but how in the world can she compare Roddick to David Wheaton? Roddick is twice the player he was. Let's not lower Roddick's bar too quickly. He still has room to improve

This is what we lawyers call "ownage".  I do see Harwitt's point, but it's a fluffy one.  You can believe it if you want to believe it.  But the facts remain unchanged.  Fed didn't stop him everytime.  It's not a Rafa/Fed/French Open situation, where we really can say the guy would have had multiple calendar Slams if not for that pesky little dirtballer.  There's of course an argument to be made, given Andy's record against him, that Fed would have stopped him eventually, but that seems kind of weak and full of speculation.

I don't really know where I'm going with this.  I just thought it was interesting.