The Brooklyn Dodgers had 1955. The Red Sox had 2004. The Lakers ended their drought against the Celtics in 1985.

But some never break through. Think of Bernie Kosar's Browns coming up short against the great John Elway three of four years in the AFC championship game in the 1980s, or the Vikings' and Bills' Super Bowl struggles.

And then there's tennis' Andy Roddick. Though the 28-year-old American does have the 2003 U.S. Open title forever etched on his resume, he has yet to figure out how to add that elusive second major championship. More specifically, he hasn't come up with the antidote to the menace known as Roger Federer.

Just a few days ago on Federer's home turf in Basel, Switzerland, in a tournament that only the most devoted tennis fans pay much attention to, Roddick went down in limp fashion yet again, falling 6-2, 6-4 to the man some consider the greatest ever.  The ledger for their career contests now reads: Federer 20, Roddick 2. That is a level of dominance over a superb top-10 player rarely seen in the sport. Bjorn Borg's downright mean treatment of close friend Vitas Gerulaitis is comparable, as Borg never lost in 16 matches. But Gerulaitis wasn't quite the player Roddick is.

Of course, this discussion wouldn't be taking place had Roddick not mishit a high backhand volley - off a shot he perhaps should have let go, as it appeared it might be heading out - in the second set of his epic 2009 Wimbledon final against Federer. Roddick had squandered three break points but still had a set point on his serve before his awkward miss. Had he converted one of those four set points, he would have been up two sets to none and likely on his way to the most coveted of the Grand Slams. Instead, he had to settle for a stirring effort that came up painfully short at 14-16 in the final set. He hasn't been the same player since, making it as far as the quarterfinals just once in the ensuing five Slams.

I imagine Roddick would gladly be 1-30 all time against Federer if that one victory had been in a Slam final. The two have faced off in four Slam finals - Wimbledon in 2004, 2005 and 2009 and the U.S. Open in 2006 - and Federer has walked away with the trophy each time. Aside from his U.S. Open title, those are the only times Roddick has reached a major final.

It's a strange rivalry Roddick and Federer have, if one can call such a lopsided affair a rivalry. Yet the pair came to prominence at the same time, both winning their first Slams in 2003, and are the only two players to be ranked in the year-end Top 10 every season since 2002. It's hard to believe with all he's accomplished that Roddick may still merit only "almost Hall of Fame" status, though with his consistently high ranking and strong Davis Cup commitment and record, I assume he will gain entry.

The list of players who have won a Slam final during this era of Federer and Rafael Nadal is brief. In the 28 Slams since Roddick won the Open in 2003, only four players aside from Federer and Nadal have won: Gaston Gaudio in the 2004 French Open, Marat Safin in the 2005 Australian Open, Novak Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open and Juan Martin del Potro in the 2009 U.S. Open.

A small strike against Roddick is that his lone major title came during a decidedly transitional year in the sport. It was the year after Pete Sampras retired and just before the ascendancy of Federer, followed by Nadal.

So as he rapidly approaches tennis old age and with his game having already peaked, what can Roddick do to secure that elusive second major title? Hard to say, but his best and perhaps only chance will be at Wimbledon. Roddick no longer possesses the lethal groundstrokes (this is a mystery, as he used to own a fierce forehand) to consistently win three of five sets on hard courts. He's never been a factor on clay. So it's at the Big W, his most successful - and heartbreaking - event, that offers Roddick the best chance of winning again.

But if Nadal and Federer are still the main threats at Wimbledon, how can Roddick win? Maybe he can look to Ivan Lendl.

Lendl, one of the great champions, won everywhere - three U.S. and French titles, two Australian crowns - except Wimbledon. The 1980s icon was forever frustrated on the grass, losing consecutive finals in 1986 and '87. Toward the end of his storied career, Lendl opted not to play the French Open, where he clearly would have been one of the favorites, to practice on the grass to offer himself one last chance of victory there. His efforts fell sadly short.

Roddick, through different reasoning, should mimic Lendl's strategy. Since Wimbledon is Roddick's favorite event and he has zero chance of winning in Paris, he should skip Roland Garros in 2011 - skip the whole clay-court season, in fact - and spend May and June honing his already stellar grass-court acumen. Some may say that appears desperate. So what? It may offer him his only chance.

It's hard not to root for Roddick, wanting to see the hard work and devotion - not to mention the burden of carrying American men's tennis on his shoulders during this prolonged drought of talent - pay off with another significant victory. And imagine if his victim were Federer? Now that would be special.