Despite winning five titles, reaching the final at Wimbledon, and ranking among the top three players in the world, Andy Roddick would no doubt agree that 2005 was a disappointing year.

Roddick won the U.S. Open in 2003 and finished that season as the world’s top ranked player. Since then, Roger Federer has dominated tennis, save a few moments of glory for Marat Safin and newcomer Rafael Nadal. Though Roddick has remained healthy and actually improved his volley and footwork, winning results have not followed – at least not in the most important events. He suffered perhaps the most embarrassing defeat of his career at the U.S. Open, losing in the first round to Gilles Muller, ranked no. 85 in the world.

On Monday evening in Melbourne, Roddick returned to action, winning his first match at the Australian Open 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 over Michael Lammer.The 24-year-old American has arrived fit and confident that he will play more aggressively in 2006, especially on his return games. Perhaps more telling of his success, however, will be his performance in tiebreakers.

If 2005 was a disappointment for Roddick, it was a catastrophe in terms of tiebreakers. He won 29 and lost 24, a winning percentage of .547. Prior to last season, he had won .646 of his tiebreakers; his poor performance in 2005 lowered his career average to .623. If he had maintained his career .646 rate, the result would have been five more sets in his favor over the course of the season (a record of 34-19).

How important could five sets be in a year? For Roddick in 2005, the answer is: extremely.

* At the Australian Open, he reached the semifinals, losing to Lleyton Hewitt in four sets, 3-6, 7-6 (3), 7-6 (4), 6-1. Winning either tiebreaker would have changed the course of the match.

* In March,Roddick and his American teammates lost to Croatia in the first round of the Davis Cup, 3-2 (Croatia eventually won its first Cup in December). Roddick lost to Ivan Ljubicic, 4-6, 6-3,7-6 (11),6-7(7),6-2.Had he won the first tiebreaker, he would have held a two-sets-to-one lead. Ljubicic, by the way, has a terrible career record in tiebreakers, 115-120 (.489), largely because he returns serve so poorly. Last year, which was his best on the tour, Ljubicic won 19% of games when returning, worse than Roddick’s 21% and well behind Nadal (38%) and Federer (31%).

* In Indian Wells, Calif., Roddick again lost to Hewitt in the semifinals, 7-6 (2), 6-7 (3), 7-6 (4).

* On clay in Rome, Roddick conceded an incorrect call on match point against Fernando Verdasco. He lost concentration, the ensuing tiebreaker, and ultimately, the match, 6-7 (1), 7-6 (3), 6-4.

* In the Wimbledon final, Roddick gave Federer an insurmountable lead by losing the second set tiebreaker. Federer, who won 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4, is 150-91 (.622) in tiebreakers in his career, no better than Roddick.

* In Indianapolis, Roddick, the defending champion, won the first set against Robby Ginepri in the quarterfinals before dropping a tiebreaker and the match, 4-6, 7-6 (2), 7-5. Ginepri went on to win the title.

* Last, and worst of all, Roddick crumbled against Muller in three consecutive tiebreakers at the U.S. Open, 7-6 (4), 7-6 (10), 7-6 (1).

So there we have it: 11 lost tiebreakers in crucial matches. If Roddick had won five of those, it could have resulted in another title (in Indianapolis), a victory over the eventual Davis Cup champions, thousands of happy fans in New York, or a major title in Australia. Roddick owns a 3-2 career record against last year’s champion, Marat Safin, and has won their last three meetings. In those matches, the two played seven sets, six of them decided by tiebreakers. Roddick won five of six.

Roddick is right to talk about returning serve more aggressively; if he won more than 21% of those games,he would not find himself in so many tiebreakers (Roddick won 22% of return games in 2004, 21% in 2003,and 23% in 2002).But it might be more important for him to remember this strategy when he does end up in tiebreakers, no matter how tempted he is to guide a soft backhand return into the middle of the court. If he won a few return points – often,just one or two – his serve would take care of the rest.If he won three or more, it would take pressure off his service points and put that much more on his opponent.

In several of the matches mentioned above, Roddick won just three, two, or one point in the tiebreaker.This can only be explained by a lack of confidence or concentration, as Roddick’s serve is too exceptional for such a poor showing.For all the disappointments of 2005, he produced one of the best serving years in history, routinely serving over 130 mph while putting 66% of his first serves in the box – an improvement of 3% from his career high. Consider that Nadal, known to have a weak serve, connected on first serves 69% of the time. Roddick won 82% of the first serves he put in play, compared to 71% for Nadal. Roddick rarely double faulted,an average of 1.9 per match against 13.2 aces. Nadal double faulted 1.5 times a match against 2.5 aces.

If all this has you wondering about Pete Sampras, he never served higher than 64% on his first serve nor held his service games more than 91% of the time. In 1995, a year in which he won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, Sampras held 89% of his service games and averaged 11.1 aces and 3.4 double faults per match.

Roddick’s challenging draw at the Australian Open became a touch easier yesterday when fellow American Taylor Dent was upset in the first round,and his future would be even brighter if David Nalbandian,a winner in five sets,continues to struggle. Expect Roddick to win his next two matches relatively easily; once Ginepri rolls around in round four, the tiebreakers might come into play. In the end, they could be the difference between another so-so year like 2005 and a return to the glorious 2003.