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.
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:
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.