What makes a great player? Is it being No.1? Winning majors? Staying in the top ten? A huge, hard-hitting serve?

I think we can all agree the Pete Sampras was a great player. He won 64 singles titles, 14 Grand Slams, he was ranked No.1 at the end of the year for six consecutive years. He was No.1 for 286 weeks. He was not only a great player but he was a champion.

Can we call Andy Roddick a great player? He’s won 23 singles titles, one major (the 2003 U.S. Open), he was ranked No.1 for nine weeks in 2003, and he’s clocked the fastest serve in tennis at 153 mph in 2004 at Queen’s Club in London. Roddick seemingly pales in comparison to Sampras but among the current crop of players, apart from Roger Federer, who doesn’t?

'Can Roddick pull out another major title when he has Federer, Rafael Nadal and now Djokovic for rivals? Can anybody?

Roddick has hired Jimmy Connors, another truly great player and champion but is this enough to help him win another major? Andy’s game has improved tremendously but he still hasn’t done enough to capture a major title. With each tournament that passes him by, I find myself sinking deeper and deeper into a funk about Andy. I really can’t tolerate him losing over and over again. He has so much talent and a lot of promise but it's not enough for him to win major titles.

I was really hoping that Connors with all his wisdom and experience could help Andy win another major, but what is missing? Should he practice more? Should he study his opponents more? Should he get into better physical shape? Should he work on his speed? Should he work on his moving? Should he work on hitting the lines rather than going for all out winners?

Roddick just lost to David Ferrer of Spain at the Cincy Open. He was beaten in the Rogers Cup in Toronto by Novak Djokovic and the week before that he won the Legg Mason Classic. But can he pull out another major title when he has Federer, Rafael Nadal and now Djokovic for rivals? Can anybody?