IF the people around us reflect who we are, then Andy Roddick has changed utterly over the past couple of years. He's still as articulate and quick-witted as ever in interview, if a little less brash and bullish in talking himself up, but it's his attitude towards tennis that has been transformed completely. Where once he took orders from Brad Gilbert, the dour American coach whose coaching manual Winning Ugly summed up his tennis philosophy, he now swings his racket to the tune of Jimmy Connors' teachings, one of the game's true mavericks.

If Gilbert brainwashed Roddick with the theory that the best way to win a point was to keep the ball alive as long as possible and wait for the fella opposite to make an error, then Connors' values are almost the polar opposite. A neat touch player and an inventive and aggressive baseliner to boot, Connors won eight Grand Slam titles - the Australian Open once, Wimbledon twice and the US Open five times - during an amazing 26 years at the top of the game. And when Roddick decided that Gilbert's way of doing things wasn't working for him anymore, he decided that his best way forward was under the guidance of a genuine winner, not a theoretical one.

The Wimbledon crowds have already seen Connors' influence. Roddick has blitzed his way through the competition's first three rounds, beating compatriot Justin Gimelstob on Monday in straight sets, accounting for Danai Udomchoke in similar style on Wednesday, while in the twilight of Friday evening, he won through to the last 16 with a pretty routine and rapidfire work-out against Spaniard Fernando Verdasco. Rather than being content with just winning games by playing the percentages, Roddick, from what we've witnessed so far this week, wants to win them with a bit of style and authority. He's looking composed and confident, with not a set dropped so far and you get the feeling that his change in outlook in the past few years has been solely initiated with the goal of winning just one Wimbledon title.

Of all the setbacks in his career to date - and to be fair, there haven't been that many - it's the successive final defeats to Roger Federer in 2004 and 2005 here at SW19 that have cut deepest. Wimbledon means something to him. It was something he grew up watching on television and to fail there twice has only made the Texan more determined to succeed. His passion for the place stems from a right little American fairytale, mom and apple pie, the picture perfect nuclear family scene. "I remember my family, we'd make time, we'd get up for Breakfast at Wimbledon every weekend, " he explains. "My mom would cook. We'd all get up before we probably should have, get ready for the tennis, do it as a family. To be playing in it is surreal. Now it's to the point where my mom just gets up and cooks for my dad. It's an easier work load for her than previous years now that I'm over here playing."

At the age of nine he got hold of a half-adozen tennis balls and scribbled his signature across them with a black marker.

"Hold onto this, " he told his rather baffled parents and siblings. "It might be valuable one day."

Call it arrogance, call it confidence but the fact remains he was on the money. It's the kind of attitude America, and especially its media, love to hear but they haven't been all that sweet on Roddick lately. After the retirements of favourites like Jim Courier, Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, guys who won Grand Slams on a consistent basis, not just an occasional one like Roddick's US Open win of 2003, they view the Texan as something of a tennis failure. He's the current US number one and they reckon he should be bringing home the trophies to honour that title.

Never mind that he's now the only US player left in the men's singles at Wimbledon, they just can't reconcile themselves to his lack of achievement. He's been pilloried by some who say he hasn't the commitment to be a professional player. A cameo appearance on children's programme Sabrina the Teenage Witch and a guest role as anchor of Saturday Night Live provide ample fuel for that kind of talk but rather than his penchant for publicity, it's the softening of hisbrash attitude over the past couple of years that appears to anger his critics most.

The truth of the matter is that where before Roddick talked big but played with a dose of conservatism despite his stinging forehand, he now talks a little less forthrightly and plays a lot more directly. But still, the US press don't appear to like the fact that the nine-year kid who was once treating signed tennis balls like slow-maturing bonds isn't quite talking the same kind of self-promoting talk anymore.

One incident, back in May 2005, seems to have split the US hacks. At the Rome Masters, Roddick had a match point against his opponent on Friday, Fernando Verdasco. The Spaniard was serving to save the game on his second serve with the linesman erroneously called the serve out. If the call held, Roddick would have claimed the game but instead he motioned to the umpire and indicated that the point was indeed good.

The call was changed and Verdasco went on to win the match. The view of the American press was that Roddick had chosen sportsmanship over victory, not a bad thing you might say, but many meant those words in the pejorative sense.

There are some who also dislike his chipper press conference demeanour but for a player who's under intense press scrutiny this fortnight, it's refreshing to see that he hasn't clammed up and decided that the best way to punish criticism of his tennis is by denying journalists a few words here and there. Already this week he's made the headlines with two of his three post-match offerings.

On Monday, he was talking about his on-court diving competition with Gimelstob, yet another act that appears to have annoyed some traditionalists, while on Thursday he was agog at the television coverage of Tony Blair's house move. "The funniest thing that I saw when I woke up was they televised the moving van literally pulling up, and they followed the moving van down the street when he's moving his crap out. I think that's hilarious. We need to get a moving van in the States somewhere."

His free-speaking has undoubtedly been encouraged by Connors. During the oldtimer's career, he managed to piss-off the tennis authorities with all sorts of boycotts and silences, but in retirement he has cast himself as a completely reformed character, a respected elder of the tennis world. He may well have advised Roddick that the selfinduced hassle isn't worth it, that surliness only bounces straight back at you.

The high-road seems to suit the Texan just fine and he appears to be keeping everyone entertained while taking it.

Back on court, Roddick has his eyes firmly set on Federer. If all goes well with the two of them next week - and there's nothing to suggest that either Paul-Henri Mathieu or the winner of the Richard Gasquet or JoWilfried Tsonga round of 16 tie have the ability to defeat the American - then Roddick and the World Number One will meet on Friday at the semi-final stage. A few weeks back the American joked that although Federer had beaten him in their last nine meetings, nobody beats him 10 times in a row. Still, while he may not be shouting it from the rooftops as he would have been likely to do a few years ago, he does sense that the Swiss maestro is a little more vulnerable then previous Wimbledon Championships. "I think any time he takes more losses than he normally does, I think collectively everyone's pretty fired up about it, " he said late on Friday night. "I don't think we're sitting here feeling sorry for him. I don't think we're upset to see him lose. No way."

If he goes out on court with that kind of attitude, and tries to go out and actually beat Federer rather than just trying to contain him, the Wimbledon title he so desperately craves might finally be his. We bet that would be a happy breakfast.