Federer Beats Roddick in Marathon Wimbledon Final

Major Kudos to Andy Roddick!!!!!! What a match he made of it, and all those people who said he had no chance? Well, he took Fed to the longest point battle at Wimbledon ever! He made Fed work HARD for that title. YAY Andy!!!

Congrats to Fed too.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

Had to cry for Andy’s loss this time too, that was a heartbreaker.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Some funny banter with Pete from both Fed & Rod – very cute! : D

July 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Two more goals left for Roger.
50+ more weeks at no.1 and 2012 Gold Medal.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Von, please take heart. You must be so proud of Roddick!!!! He did so well today.

———————

I thought Fed’s speech was fine and dandy overall; he was generally funny and acknowledged how Andy felt (I liked Andy’s quip, though, “you already had 4”). But the netjet commercial already congratulating him with 15 and his warm up jacket with 15 embroidered on it? To my mind, that’s a little overkill. I can’t recall any of that sort of stuff when Pete won his 14th.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I’m very heartbroken for Andy. I thought his chance of winning was slim but losing like this is very painful.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Congrats to the FED!! So deserving!
My only deep disappointment was that Pete did not present the trophy, like Andre did in Paris. What’s with that?? Wimbledon is true to their traditions, but COME ON!!
A little bend in the rules was definitely in order just this once, eh?
But thankfully, I watched the match online and was privileged to see the banter back and forth with Rog and Pete and Ron and Bjorn. What a treat!!
I so love this game!!

July 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Anyone with an interesting breakdown/analysis of how the rankings are gonna play out for the next few months??

July 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Von, that was pretty hard on Roddick. I felt he deserved the title a bit more than Fed, cuz of the way he played the entire match, except the last game.

I wish there was no loser in this match.

Now.. that is 3 consecutive 5-set wimbledon finals involving Fed… and 2 of them going the real distance.

July 5th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Kudos to both. What an epic match ! The stronger survived. Congrats to Fed for his landmark 15th, regaining his number 1, winning back to-back French Open and Wimbledon, and breaking his Ace record in a single match with 50, (5 or 6 less than Karlovic’s).

Congrats to Roddick for showing great heart and playing a magnificent tennis ! All the credit to A-Rod for giving us a great Grand Slam final. He had chances to win, just came up a little short at the end. Like I said earlier, A-Rod might have won had he not squandered those 4 set points in the 2nd set.

Tennis wins again, not happens often.

Epic Wise
Last year= 62 games total
this year= 77 games in total, 15 more than last year’s.

(P.S. This is my copy and paste from the other thread.)

July 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

jane & tejuz thank you. andy played a better match than Federer, who was extremely dependent on his serve, and not his ‘beautiful’ tennis, which deserted him. I hope we don’t see big servers being knocked anymore, because had it not been for Federer serving aces, he would not have won. roddick beat him off the ground.

I’ll say two things : (1) in future when i see Andy on Federer’s side of the draw, instead of being unhappy, I’ll be glad, because he’ll beat Federer. Bring on the USO, and I hope Andy beats him in front of an AMERICAN crowd. And (2) andy didn’t cry and steal Fed’s thunder. When all is said and done, Andy is THE man!! Grace, style and class, not to mention that handsome face.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

My God how years pass!!! To think that the veteran gentleman who won today his 15th slam was only a brash 22 year old with a pony-tail and a beady necklace when he won the very same title six years ago.

Who would have thought Pete’s record would last less than seven years!!!

July 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Fed struggled with Andy today becasue this was a very different Andy rom the one he played 20 times before. Andy is a MUCH better baseliner now, he has a lot more variety and power, and with a serve like his, they sky is the limit.

It’s a shame he failed to improve his baseline game for so many years.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Kimo: I guess you’ll be peat and repeat all day long, and then peat and repeat in your sleep too? OY VEY to us all.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm

Von, I’m on your side, but that last statement DID sound like sour grapes, even if you didn’t mean it to sound like that.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

Just two words for Roger Federer: Tennis Emperor!!!!!!!! The Lord…The Master!!!!! Andy played the game of his life however, he’ll going up in rankings for sure in further tournaments this season.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Either player deserved the title today (not previously being much of a Roddick fan, I was really impressed with the way he played and hopes he can keep this good form up to get another GS title one day), though what this match came down to for me was who was better in clutch situations. The answer: Fed.

Both players were playing out of their mind — Roddick off the ground and Federer with his serving — but, as Fed said, the match had to end. Andy just couldn’t keep it up.

Great match for both today.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

Kimo: No, I’m not the sour grapes type. I just meant Andy looked like he wanted to cry, but he didn’t, and because he didn’t, the focus was not shifted from Federer onto Andy. Are we clear on that?

July 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

I feel for Roddick, he played the best tennis of his life. I hope he will get another shot at the title without his nemesis there, like Ivanisevic.

Certainly he is proving that he can still match it with the younger generation (Murray, Djokovic etc.) and even push Federer to the brink.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Wow – what a spectacle. I can’t help but feel sad for Andy, and if anyone in here makes any more disparaging comments about them I will hack into their computer find out where they live, come to their house and slap them silly.

And Roddick is to be congratulated for a phenomenal match, and also for the dedication to the sport that has enabled him to compete with the likes of Federer.

But to quote pete – “Federer is just a stud.”

That being said, I find it ironic the comment that Fed had to be dependent on his serve to win, when that has been Roddick’s bread and butter for a decade.

=====

Jane – two reasons Pete didn’t get the Tiger, Michael Jordan, Serena etc. congrats and the Nike and Net Jet pre-filmed commercials congratulating him when he set the record at 13, or extended it at the US Open to 14 – 1) It’s a different era now with sponsorships, with the media far more involved, and – perhaps more importantly – 2) The record Roger eclipsed was Pete’s, which was significant. When Pete eclipsed Emerson’s 12 it was important only for the number, for Emerson did not compete against Laver and Rosewall etc. – all the others who went pro. Enerson’s number has a HUGE asterisk next to it, where the Sampras number was one of a true champion, and for anyone to beat it is indeed pomp-worthy.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

ok, Von.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Andy was THE man, as you say Von. I cried but he didn’t. :’ (

He even managed to lighten the moment by joking with Pete. And I thought the crowd cheered even more loudly for him because of his efforts today.

You also make a wonderful point about serving. How long have people criticized Roddick for his “one-trick” game and yet it was precisely Roger’s serve that pulled him through.

Bring on the USO indeed! ; D

July 5th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Von, coming from a huge Federer fan let me tell you that I wish Roddick would have won this match. Honest. This is the first time I didn’t feel happy after a Federer win. Overall I feel Roddick played the better match off the ground, way way more clever than before. I dearly hope he will one day clinch the title, he’s definitely the best player never to have won Wimby.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

Gordo: “I find it ironic the comment that Fed had to be dependent on his serve to win, when that has been Roddick’s bread and butter for a decade.”

No need to generalize, I’m the ONLY one who said that, so direct your comment to me, and check the sarcasm. I would have liked to put my remarks into perspective, but since you seem to forget my name, I’ll just ignore you.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Wow, what a match. Andy played out of his mind, and frankly so did Roger. Who would have thought that Roddick would lose 2 tiebreaks in this match-dropping that first one cost him the match-and be outaced 50 to 27 by Roger. Not me.

I’m unbelievably proud of both guys-especially Roddick. Yes Von, I actually do like him, and I hope he’ll take this new level of consistency and controlled aggression into the US hard court season. He’ll have a real shot at the US Open if he continues to believe and to work as hard as he has this year. And, what can you say about Roger-just incredible. This is the best that men’s tennis has to offer.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

But Fed did depend on his serve today. He was not sharp off the ground at all. I think he played his worst match of the tournament in the final.

But let’s not take anything away from Roddick who played the best match of his life.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Gordo, you do make a valid point about different eras. But it has something to do with “expecting” to win too.

Pete was always a humble champion imo; he’d not go in for that kind of “pomp”. I can’t see him ever ever walking onto court with a pre-embroidered #14 on a warm-up jacket in his bag. It’s just not his style.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Roddick played a part in Federer playing bad. He rarely played the same ball twice. I agree that overall, Fed’s serve saved him, even if his serve was more based on placement than on power. Off the baseline, Roddick was better in the fourth and the fifth.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Vincent: Thank you, I appreciate your comments, but you’re making me cry again — you’re a nice Fed fan, with a lot of depth to you. I only wish the best for the kid, he’s got a beautiful heart. I just don’t like an athlete for their game alone, I like the person behind the game, and Roddick’s a fine and generous human being, who has been knocked about by the sick media, and here at Tennis.X. hence, it’s the reason I appreciate your comments even more.

BTW, every time I see the name Vincent, I remember Vincent Van Gogh — his was a beautiful soul.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Bring on the USO, and I hope Andy beats him in front of an AMERICAN crowd. And (2) andy didn’t cry and steal Fed’s thunder

I’m still sad about this one but he did not blubber like some.Liberace outfit,monogrammed racket wrappers, number 15 jacket, Gavin Rossdale again.ugh. Yes Von, bring on the US Open but I’m afraid the favorite going in is once again, ta-da, Andy Murray. They say it’s his US Open, that’s his fave surface, yada yada yada.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Kimo,

You should re-read this comment:

“I think he played his worst match of the tournament in the final.

But let’s not take anything away from Roddick who played the best match of his life.”

It’s quite blind.

You’re saying Fed’s 50 aces was his worst match of “the tournament”?

Please don’t give me one of your “you have to understand” posts in response. Just try – TRY – to think about that comment. It was not Fed’s worst match.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

jane: I’m slowly beginning to lose respect for Pete; I’m seeing him more and more as a phoney playing the sides. He and Roddick used to be good buddies. I’m glad Andy didn’t invite him to his wedding, but he invited Andre. And, Andy’s always respected Andre more, which speaks volumes to me.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Sorry to hear that Von, I also cried a bit after match point, seeing Roddick’s face. He has grown on me. Take comfort in the fact that Federer lost 4 years in a row at the French to the same opponent, and that we Fed fans had also lost all hope… Roddick will be a contender at Wimbledon for the years to come with the sheer quality of his serve. Wish him and you all the best !

July 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Vincent, I’ll echo Von. Some very kind and objective commentary from you. It was a very closely contested match. Both guys played well. Fed had to rely on his serve at the end there as he was making some errors at the net and off the ground. And Andy was much better at converting on break points wasn’t he?

July 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

vared: Roddick has already won the USO, so it’s kind of a toss-up. His serve is da bomb, literally and figuratively. ha ha.
________________
Kimo; Be careful, you’re getting yourself into a tangled web, and I’ll have to tell you that famous phrase: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave”. LOL.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

jane said:

“It was not Fed’s worst match.”

But it was. He did hit 50 aces, but that’s just because the match lasted almost seven sets.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Kimo: “I think he played his worst match of the tournament in the final.”

No kidding!

July 5th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Von, I see what you mean; I have always thought you made good points in the past, too, that Sampras, J-Mac, etc could be doing more to grow tennis in the USO, rather than Pete playing exos with Fed for example. But with Gordo, I am talking about Pete in the past, when he was winning slams. I always thought he was quite humble. I loved Agassi too; he’s always been a sensitive guy and was so explosive and rebellious when he first started playing. Rafa was like Agassi that way. Unorthodox.

Roddick is getting even more handsome hey? Wow. Brooklyn’s a lucky lady.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Okay Kimo, but Roddick certainly had a lot to do with it; that’s all.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Kimo: A footnote to my post. It looked like Federer played ‘the worst’ match ONLY because Roddick took it to him and he didn’t have any place to go, but try to hit aces to bail himself out in the tight spots. Do try to be more analytical, please.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Quoting jane: “And Andy was much better at converting on break points wasn’t he?”

Roddick: 2 of 5 = 40%; Federer: 1 of 7 = 14 %

Better percentage wise, but only 2 conversions to 1 in reality.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Many people have been discussing about federer being all time great. To this, I have a simple answer, he is all time great because I did not chose to play tennis. If I had, people would have been discussing “Who Federer?”, instead of him being all time great.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

It gave me great pleasure to see Andy Roddick holding up, once again, the runner up trophy at Wimbledon. This is not a knock on him. 126 other players would have loved to be in that position.

He just was up against a force of nature called Roger Federer.

Andy Roddick was a bit disrespectful during Roger’s speech shouting out “you’ve won 5 times” like a sore loser. Show some class Andy like Roger always does. What did he expect. Roger to hand it to him because he feels sorry for him.

Andy and Von should have lunch and order sour grapes for dessert.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

I will try to write something up about this tonight. I was on the verge of tears seeing Roddick in the post match phase and I am a Federer guy!!! I have credentials for Indy and Cincy and if I see Roddick at either I feel like I owe him a beer or something. Still shell shocked.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Well, as much as I like Federer, this was obviously one of those matches where the winner wasn’t the better player. The luckier guy won today…

July 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

jsmauger – thanks for clarifying the break points stat.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

jane said:

“Roddick certainly had a lot to do with it; that’s all.”

That’s what I said. Roddick did take it to him, and there’s no doubt that Roddick was indeed better off the ground than Fed (there’s a sentence I never thought I’d say, LOL), but you have to admit that Fed made many avoidable UEs, UEs off of total sitters that had nothing to do with who the other side of the net was. I numenrous points of the match when Roddick was in the groove on his serve and Fed would finally manage to return it in, you would think that Fed shuold make full use of those points, but instead he’d mishit it or go for too much or too little.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm

NachoF – since you asked, here is what we can expect to see at play in the next 2 months, ranking-wise.

Here are the points, as of tomorrow –

Federer – 11,220
Nadal – 10,745
Murray – 9540
Djokovic – 8250

Points they are defending over the next 2 Masters 1000 and the US Open
Canada /Cincy / US OPEN

Federer – 10 / 150 / 2000 = 2,160 points
Nadal – 1000 / 450 / 900 = 2,350 points
Murray – 450 / 1000 / 1400 = 2,850
Djokovic – 250 / 700 / 900 = 1,850

Non-defendable points they will lose from the 2008 Olympics –

Federer – 200
Nadal – 800
Murray – 10 (but not included in his current point total)
Djokovic – 410

So – the combined total to come off between now and the conclusion of the US Open, followed by the resulting score, will be –

Federer – 2,360 points / 8860
Nadal – 3,150 points / 7595
Murray – 2,850 points / 6690
Djokovic – 2,260 points / 5990

Of course points they achieve from these three tournaments will have to be added to the above totals.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Cindy, Andy was joking when he said that, that’s why everyone laughed.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

jane : Vincent, I’ll echo Von. Some very kind and objective commentary from you. It was a very closely contested match. Both guys played well. Fed had to rely on his serve at the end there as he was making some errors at the net and off the ground. And Andy was much better at converting on break points wasn’t he?

——–

Thanks Jane. It’s the first time I feel so down after a match. Mind you, I would have danced in the street last year if Fed had pulled it off against Nadal…

July 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Vincent: “This is the first time I didn’t feel happy after a Federer win.”

Me too.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Skorocel Says:

Well, as much as I like Federer, this was obviously one of those matches where the winner wasn’t the better player. The luckier guy won today…

The dumbest post I’ve ever read on this site.

Roger Federer won because he was lucky. Good Grief!

July 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Gordo, do you know if Roddick will pass Del Potro now, after reaching the finals here? That’s what I’d like to know! If anyone could answer I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Cindy Brady: “Show some class Andy like Roger always does.” Are you for real. This coming from you when you’ve mentioned many, many times, that you ‘hate’ Federer. OY VEY to the 10th exponent. Now i know for a fact you lie. and talking about lying, you lied that i was nasty to you during the FO, show me the comments. But you can’t because I wasn’t nasty to you in “many’ posts as you said.

Federer was the classless one. No one tells another player that they have more chances to win when you beat them. Andy’s anwer was meant in jest, but only you can interpret it to mean something else because you’ve got zerol class. Bye granny!

BTW, myself and Andy don’t have to eat sour grapes. You have to do that because of your stupid and idiotic predictions, which have shown you’re just a bloody bag of hot air and also you’re the biggest joke I’ve ever seen here on Tennis-X. sheesh.

July 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

Cindy-Brady talking about showing some class = definition of irony. LMAO!!!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Von –

Sorry, I wasn’t try to ignore your name, and I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. I was pointing out that Roddick’s serve had been his bread and butter, and it is ironic that now that his mobility is brilliant and his backhand is the best I have ever seen it he should lose to someone whose serve was more consistent. Because Any’s service game many times has been the reason he had advanced in tournaments.

Fed is not going to want to meet Andy again at the US Open, because if he does it might be in the semi-final, and that might produce a grueling match. Because the semis are played the day before the final, Fed might be tired going into the final. :) Now this paragraph was laced with sarcasm.

I was joking really – Andy may well beat Fed the next time they meet. I give Andy a better chance of knocking off Fed on grass or on a hard surface than I do Djokovic knocking off Nadal on clay.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Von,

Did I smell a fart from you?

Those sour grapes do stink!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Jane – I’ll get you that in a minute. Watch for it.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Quoting Kimo: “That’s what I said. Roddick did take it to him, and there’s no doubt that Roddick was indeed better off the ground than Fed (there’s a sentence I never thought I’d say, LOL), but you have to admit that Fed made many avoidable UEs, UEs off of total sitters that had nothing to do with who the other side of the net was.”

I think this contention is more perception than reality. Take a look at the match and 5th set stats if you want to check the winners/errors for both guys:

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html
http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/scores/stats/day21/1701ss5.html

July 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

jane: i thiknk andy will pass DelPotro by about 50-100 points. As I said, I’m not into stats; I dislike stats, but just looking at the numbers, i think andy will be No. 5 and he has a lot to gain at Toronto and Cincy, whereas DelPotro has a lot to defend during the US HC season. so even if andy doesn’t catch him now, he’ll get him very soon.

Another positive I’ve taken and one which Andy should too, he’s now acquired an aura, and won’t be considered an easy out from the olther top 4 guys.
_________________
Skorocel: Your comment was just wonderful, and it shows your beautiful hear, but you can’t expect to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — just consider the source, which ain’t pretty and is obviously now a JOKE to everyone. The joker is wild, whoo hoo.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Von, i suggest you cease immediately answering a certain someone.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Cindy Brady: I know you’ve got zero class, and i’m not going to allow you to bring me down to your level, so pound away all you want, I won’t answer anymore.

BTGW, I don’t use coupons, I’m rich, got it. I leave coupon cutting for you.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

jane Says:

Cindy-Brady talking about showing some class = definition of irony. LMAO!!!

I’m out of here until the master series events begin.

Yah, I’ll be back. My work is done for now.

Kisses to Von and Zola.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

vared: I was telling her that while you posted. Look at the time, we both posted about a few seconds apart. LOL. It’s an exercise in futility. She’s got nothing better to do, and is one crazy ^&(). I mean she’s not stopped talking since Roddick beat Murray. OUCH.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Please let the trolls dangle in the breeze, and let’s talk tennis!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

This is definitely a case where it would have been sad to see either player lose. Roddick seemed gutted after playing such a spectacular match and coming out on the losing end. I’ll definitely be cheering for him during the USO. He’s much too talented and hard-working a player to have only won 1 Slam.

Congrats to Roger for the all-time record and reaching #1 again. There was an insane amount of pressure on him and he pulled through it somehow.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

I’d puke to know you’ve kissed me. Yuck, I’m nauseous, feel dirty and violated, yuck and yuck.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Okay Jane – you were asking about 4 & 5?

Del Potro and Roddick were both defending only 70 points.

So –

Del Porto has 5730 less 70 from last year plus 45 for reaching the 2nd round = 5705

while Roddick has 4310 less 70 from last year plus 1200 for being the runner-up = 5440

He is a lot closer!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

jsmaugher: I hope you’re not calling me a troll?

July 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Boy – occasionally you wonder what is with the catch line “Dysfunctional Tennis Blogging at its Finest.”

Not today! :)

July 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

I cried just a little when I saw how close Andy was to tears. He probably shed a couple when he was waiting for the ceremony to start. (Seriously, if you don’t let that moment get to you when you played it that close on the biggest stage in tennis, then you’re a damn robot and you and Lendl and Borg can have a nice time on planet Mars.) :(

His interview isn’t up yet at wimbledon.org, but I’m sure Fed will admit he got played to a standstill, and he just came up big when it mattered more. I don’t think Andy out-baselined him, he just played him even — that alone was astonishing, but it’s not surprising when you consider 9 out of 10 points were over by the return: no rhythm, no reads, no fluidity.

As for your comments about Pete being phoney, Von: no. You don’t necessarily side with your countryman, and he and Roger have been tight for a couple years. There’s a decent article about how much closer he got to him on their various exhibitions on ESPN.com, but I’d read about it before: it sounds like they were practically bunkmates, despite how little they have in common.

I love Andy, he’s still my favorite guy on the tour… but Pete’s always going to be our guy, so don’t talk smack. He’s allowed to respect the swiss dude, he gets a pass here. The guys who don’t get a pass on being pro/con Roddick every other day depending on whether he’s playing a top 4 guy are Gilbert (his old coach I think?) and the 2 Macs — F those bastards.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Quoting Von: “jsmaugher: I hope you’re not calling me a troll?”

Von,

Absolutely not. I just didn’t want to acknowledge a certain someone, to whom you were replying, by mentioning them by name.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Wow!
Well, that certainly made up for a lacklustre women’s final, didn’t it? Three years in a row we’ve been treated to real nail-biters in the Wimbledon men’s finals and in each case it came down to a combination of luck/nerve/concentration/shadows/intangibles in the very last minutes. Being a Murray supporter I felt ahead of time that it wouldn’t matter to me who won, but I too found myself cheering for Andy and aching for him in his disappointment. This is not the brash, abrasive person who used to turn me off. Some of his passing shots and his net finesse today were right up there with Roger’s best. Days like this are why I love tennis. I feel we are all winners for having had the privilege of seeing such terrific players at their very best.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

If you want a lack of class I think it was McEnroe trying to get Pete Bjorn and Rod saying that Fed was the GOAT. To spring that on those legends was not a cool thing to do.

I think Rod Laver said it best. He is certtainly the best of his era, but after his career is over then do you evaluate.

Well said, Rocket!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Shaky: Maybe you’re right. I just feel Pete knows which side of the wonder bread is buttered and/or who butters it. But, I digress, since Pete was my all-time fave, and I’m going to shelve my thoughts.
______________
jasmauger: Thanks for the clarification.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Canadian Jane – you still here? What about Nesty repeating yesterday?

July 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Gordo, thank you for doing the math (my worst subject; having done graduate work in English, I stopped using that side of my brain for too long – ack)! Much appreciated. Yes, much closer. As Von mentioned, JMDP has a lot to defend now, since this is when he went on his 4 title run last summer. So there is a good chance for Roddick to take back #5 from the youngster.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Gordo – Tennisfan and I were discussing Nestor (and Canadian tennis generally) on another thread yesterday. Daniel is definitely a shining star for us here – yahoo for that!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Gordo: Every time Laver is asked about the GOAT designation, he says the same thing, that it’s all about the eras. I believe and defer to him and have always held that view.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Yes, I think Laver’s wisdom shone when he answered that question: best of an era. Wait until later to evaluate.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Cindy_Brady: If winning a match against an opponent who blew a 2-sets-to-love-lead only thanks to a totally misfired volley and then held with you till the 30th game of the 5th set can’t be (at least partially) attributed to luck, then I don’t know what can?

July 5th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Von – 2 things –

1) I agree with you (and Rod) and also was glad he cleared up the “how many more would you have won in those 5 years – 20?” when he pointed out that there were a lot of other good players who had turned pro who were unable to play the slams from 1963 – 1968.

2) Glad you are chatting with me again. I’d hate to be on the Von non-chat list beside you-know who. :)

July 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

Yeah the ones who are trying to tease out ratings with the GOAT talk is the Macs, with good reason (doesn’t mean I like it). Pete’s genuine, he clearly likes the guy and is impressed, you can’t knock him for having an opinion — and Pete is the BIGGEST Laver fan of them all, by far, like all his comments when he got 12+ were about Laver being the all time asterisk. So when he gives the Swiss guy a little extra love I don’t question it at all. Both those guys love Fed.

btw, Navratilova being interviewed and throwing in the “Federer might be the second greatest player of his own time” made me puke a little bit in my mouth… until I realized she probably said it to piss off Mac. Then I laughed.

It’s going to be a really good US Open.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

sorry to von and other andy fans
andy outplayed roger and still lost
roger is the luckiest player i have ever seen
good, but lucky

July 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Those who admire Fed should not miss the ATP tribute page, “Fabulous Federer: first to Fifteenth.” It’s worth spending a few moments of meditation in awe. In a line of legends’ statues, he exudes a unique, envious aura, in the midst of Sampras, Emerson, Borg, and Laver!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

ahhh i tried not to watch any of wimby this year cause im a crazy rafa fan & was depressed he couldnt defend. But ur obligated as an american tennis fan cheer on any americans if they were to be in the finals. With Roddicks record poopoo against rog and losing at finals in the past to rog .. I had to watch the end of this match. Andy played SOOOO GOOD. federer served well. I felt so bad for roddick losing, he played with so much heart, shitty luck he didnt get that 2nd set tie breaker volley or even if he had the serve going into the final set, things would have been different. Hearing Federer’s comments at the end just made me dislike federer more. “I lost last year I know how that feels..” but I loved Roddicks Quick replie! “BUT YOU’VE WON IT ALREADY 5 TIMES!!” rog smirks opponents behind a smile sometimes, he should of just said “great match” and left it at that- roddicks quick replie shifted the awackwardness & I Went HellYEAH! dont try to console some dude; I would of rather seen fed pull a ALI and say “IM THE GREATEST!” Thats why i cant stand fed, the fake humbleness is weak. Andy could have cried just like rog did at OZ this year, but did he? no! he showed backbone and didnt steal rog’s thunder unlike how rog stole rafas at oz. we all know and felt tru shittyness for roddick at the moment, that moment he truly had the real right to ball if anything. Roddick really endeared himself to me today. I loved the post match interview with sampras and others. Is fed the greatest all time? “I cant answer that.” bawhahhahah take that fathead mac! mac wanted to hear pete say “OYEAHH FEDS da BEST!” yet pete truly knows rog isnt the greatest, cause rog played at the end of the 90s era greats when pete himself was leaving the game with many others- Overall the difference from then to now is MORE COMPETITION at the top, More personality. 70s-90s tennis had it, todays game the players think its all about the baseline ball hitting and them.. no, its a “pro” sport its about the theater! we all know you can hit a tennis ball better then 98% of us!! Hell rod laver still won a calendar gs, with a 6 years difference; if he could have played those 5 years he would of had possibly 20+ titles; he’s still the goat to me but my favs – Agassi, Connors, sampras, vilas, newcombe, becker, borg, rafa. IF rog wins 20+ I might then join the fed goat grab nuts fest like tennis.com crew but truly im looking forward to the uso this year. I would love to see rafa win it or even now roddick. Then again WE NEED A NEW BLOOD HERO to dethrone this federer character totally. all in all a gr8 match. bummer tourney not having rafa there to defend.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This is so unfair,I really really wanted roddick to win.
where are the gods of tennis why didnt you answer my prayers at 15-40 fifth set.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
This is not fair at all Federer would have eclipsed petes record anyway why cant luck just be on Roddick side.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm

I could be Andy’s mother and I am soo proud of him!
Such focus and control, perseverance and personality.
He does have what champions are made of. He’ll win it next year!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

fed is afraid – still reluctant to assign the Swiss any credit!

51 aces is the equivalent of 12+ games of free points.

I guess Federer was lucky that Andy can’t read Fed’s toss.

Fed was also lucky that Andy, when up 6-2 in the tiebreaker missed that one shot that would have given him a 2 set lead.

Welcome back – you sound like the Republicans who complain that although Obama was elected by a majority, it was not really what the Americans wanted, and the wrong majority voted for him.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Skorocel Says:

Cindy_Brady: If winning a match against an opponent who blew a 2-sets-to-love-lead only thanks to a totally misfired volley and then held with you till the 30th game of the 5th set can’t be (at least partially) attributed to luck, then I don’t know what can?

I wasn’t going to post again for a while but I couldn’t let this one go.

It’s amazing how one sided fans see things.

Federer was lucky because Andy Roddick missed a sitter volley and could have went up two sets to love. This is your premise of why Federer was lucky ?

Open your mind and view this from another angle. Roddick was lucky that Federer’s normal ground strokes were not firing on all cylinders like they usually are to put Roddick in that winning position to begin with.

Federer had his chances to break too. Missed some easy passes that he doesn’t normally miss. Could be viewed Andy was lucky that didn’t happen. If it did we wouldn’t have been entertained for 4 hours by a 5 set thriller. Federer would have closed it out in 3. Federer was sharp on the serve today, but not his normal self from the ground or the return. Andy was lucky in that respect.

In the end, the better tennis player won. Was able to mentally grind it out. Find a way to break when the other player could not!

Love how extreme fans of players have an inability to be objective. And we know who they are. Only see things from their own narrow view point. Pity!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Gordo: “Glad you are chatting with me again. I’d hate to be on the Von non-chat list beside you-know who. :)”

LOL, Gordo. I didn’t think you’d care, but I’m happy to know you actually do. ha ha. Honestly. I’m not one for holding grudges, and/or seeking revenge.I speak up when I’m annoyed, and then it’s over. I asked that question because I didn’t know where I stood with you, and now that you’ve clarified it, all’s good.
___________________
Shaky: For some reason I think gilbert likes roddick and PMc also. The only ones who don’t, are Johnnie Mac, Drysdale and Cahill, IMO. Cahill had andy beaten by Hewitt in four (4), so go figure.
____________________
fed is afraid: Thank you so very much. The whole 5th set was a problem. Andy had too much pressure playing second, and the pressure finally got to him. I’m happy he played such an epic match, and as i said, bring on the USO. I won’t be unhappy anymore when I see Andy on Federer’s side of the draw again.

BTW, Any news on Rafa? I mean do you visit his website? Some news was posted about his schedule, and I hope he sticks to it even if his knees improve.

July 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm

KillerC – love it when ppl rant.

But can I give you one tip? I love reading disparate opinions, but they are all bunched up together in one line it looks like the last sentence of Ulysses.

So do what I just did; on your keyboard, to the right of the apostophe key, is an “enter” key. Hit it and have at least one additional paragraph.

There – I’ve done it again!

It helps readers comprehend your sage-like wisdom!

July 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Von – I think Rafa is classy enough to not steal any thunder until after the SW19 news has all dried up.

Besides, Toni is being hunted by the French underground. :)

July 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

I agree with Cindy.

You can single out tournaments, matches, points, etc., etc. and “prove” that a player is lucky to win them (and I’m sure luck is sometimes needed).

But viewed as such everyone has had lots of (inappropriate) luck in their matches and tournaments. In the end the best player wins simply because the winner is the best player. The only exception if something not tennis-related happens (suppose Roddick is winning 7-6, 6-4, 3-0 and just like in Seles case some mad Federerfans knives him and he has to quit. If such a thing happens I would declare Roddick the winner, but these things happen almost never.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

I finally got to see that tiebreak volley again on replay, and after reading Roddick’s interview about it, I can’t say he choked there: It was just very windy and he hesitated a moment on whether to play it. He still had chances after that, in the tiebreak, and in the next set tiebreak.

(And if Andy goes up 2-0 in sets, that doesn’t mean it’s over either. Federer’s come back from 2-0, it’s not like he’s some 20 year old from your weekend game.)

There’s no luck to it. He just played bigger on the key points, especially in the tiebreaks and the fifth (15-40 on his serve). The only “luck” was the way the cards fell he had the less pressurized seat by serving out the 5th — that’s a coin flip, I guess.

It could have gone either way, I hate the result but that doesn’t mean Roger was “lucky.”

Von — cut Cahill some slack though, Hewitt is his guy and it’s not like Roddick shocked the world by winning in 5 tight ones. Hewitt deserved that win too, just like Roger did today.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

haha sage like wisdom rant.. sorry peeps, i couldnt resists, I’ll press enter next time!! I was moved by roddicks play today and disliked the pro-fed tele commentating combined with the shitty fed smirkin post game responses. errr why do i end up rooting for the underdogs?!? :P

July 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Federer himself admitted he got lucky. And Roddick’s “you had 5” remark was not classless. Federer’s a dick. He said he lost a heartbreaker last year so he knows what it feels like, but Roddick wanted to clarify that atleast Federer had 5 at that time. Roddick just wants one Wimbledon. He busted his ass to get it and Fed’s a dick. Considering how close it was, I was expecting Federer to praise Roddick a lot more, but god forbid.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Shaky: That second set tie-break reminds me of the ’06 Shanghai Master’s Cup when Andy hit that overhead out at match point. It was deja vu all over again and he’d certainly remember it for a long time.

OK, just for you, I’ll cut Cahill some slack.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

I honestly think that Andy is poised to make a move up the rankings, and not just be the answer to the trivia question “Who was the first player Roger Federer defeated 20 times?”

Seriously – I don’t think anyone else would have been close to Roddick today, the way he played. Today’s result must make Murray feel a bit better.

And I do not believe that Roger is a jerk. The post-match embraces he has with Rafa after many finals and with Andy today makes me believe he is well liked on the tour by the other players.

But he is in a no-win scenario. When he says he likes the American’s style of play and that he is looking forward to playing Andy everyone says Fed is being sarcastic because he has owned him in the past. If he doesn’t compliment his opponent’s style then everyone says he is being smug and dismissive.

Oh well. More than anyone I think Roger knows what Andy felt like today. He felt that way last year when Nadal beat him, and he was not being smug when he said I am sure you (Andy) will win this one day.

After all, Rafa said that to Roger once about the French Open after he had defeated him – and it turned out to be true. But like Roger winning the French, Andy may have to win Wimbledon after someone else knocks Roger out.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Von — Yeah, totally! But Shanghai was a choke. I was thinking also of when he had a chance to extend that QF against Novak at last year’s USO and he hit two doubles in a row — major choke, especially given the considerable amount of momentum he had going, Novak was totally on the ropes… but today, after hearing about the wind and his thought process, I don’t think he blew it. Again, he didn’t wilt, he came to play for 3 sets after that — no choke job here, sometimes the other guy just wins even though you play well, that’s tennis.

As for all this other stuff about Roger’s “smirking comments”…

Can’t speak for the other Roddick fans, but all you Roger haters that think rooting for Roddick TODAY, just because you hate Roger, makes you less of a jerk: no. You’re posers. And nobody likes your negative tennis karma. Go back to your own bleachers, you make me puke.

Grats to Roger, I freaking hate you today but I respect you. The USO field field is going to be incredible, and you’re going down! >:(

July 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

sensationalsafin aid

“…at least Federer had 5 at that time. Roddick just wants one Wimbledon.”

I think you have summed up the difference. Roddick just wants one, while Federer believes he can win and wants them all.

If that is what makes him a “dick” then so be it.

At least he knows what he wants, unlike Safin, who seldom knew how talented he was and is probably the poster-boy for sports underachiever.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

Shaky – well said. I like your attitude!

July 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Hey Von,

Amazing match by Andy. I was so impressed. But really I wasn’t a Fed will win hands down believer anyway. I knew this would be tough. I’m not really sure how people are saying the better man lost today. I watched the whole match and Fed was the one who in the end won more of the important points. I do hope Andy continues to play this level. He showed today he is in this sport to win and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he pulls off a GS soon. Pete said it best of Roger “He gets everything he deserves.”

July 5th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Gordo @ 4:21

Well said dude.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Gordo, u cant deny FEDERER came across as A PRICK! you saw it today. the fake humbleness is annoying. I say win with glory, lose with glory! fed would rather cry and detract from his opponents gs glory! *rafa wimby 08, rafa oz 09!* and smirk at em, “good try – better luck next year (bs), I remember losing last year..” after winning the 5 previous years! whatever! roddick had every right to call rog out on that one. rog is human tho, i think he meant to console/encourage roddick that he played a gr8 match but it came across at a bad time. rog speaks multiple languages- it probably got lost in translation what he meant to say. all in all he should of just left it at great match, your a fine competitor, wish ya luck.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

I am a huge Federer fan and was rooting for him all the time, but I have do concur with others here: Roddick played better than Fed and should have won. On the other hand, I guess that what great champions do: find a way to win even when you are being outplayed.

What I don’t agree with, however, is that Federer is classless. One thing that particularly bothers me is that detractors pick on Federer because of his crying episodes. He is just very emotional and sometime is overcome with the magnitude of the moment. Even Nadal, after the 2007 Wimby final admitted that he had cried bitterly in the locker room afterward, so what’s the big deal about not being able to contain your tears during the award ceremony? Federer also cried in 2007 after WINNING the Aussie Open when Rod Laver presented him the trophy, so he is obviously not doing it to “steal the thunder” from his opponent.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

KillerC,

Let me start by saying I like A-Rod and wrote several posts on his behalf yesterday, highlighting his chances when most were writing him off. And I would not have been wailing right now had he won today. His win would not have saddened me at all. Actually, I felt a little bit sad when he lost.

But you just crossed the line. This is a response EXCLUSIVELY to your post.
I am not a Fed fanatic; I only admire him. But why are you going after his personality when there is so much to admire about his tennis or criticize if you don’t like his tennis?

One may dislike his total dominance in Slams, (that’s ok), but why do you hope, wish, or expect him to resign or retire or lose so that others can get a Slam for free? They have to earn, beat Federer on the court if they can.
I don’t admire other players, save Rafa, who cannot beat Federer at the majors. I don’t and cannot dislike Federer for his winning. I just like him playing good and winning (some may call it a little bit of luck; I like luck).

That’s the difference between you and me.
We respect your difference of opinion, but going after personality is a cheap shot, dude, because tennis is not a personality contest.

(I apologize if I offended other than this poster, so the stress above on EXCLUSIVELY).

July 5th, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Scottish: Hi and thanks. I’m hoping Andy can right the ship at the USO. I know the other players are going to start respecting Andy a lot more now, and won’t consider him to be just a serve. As I mentioned previously, I will no longer care whose side of the draw Andy lands in, because Wimby has shown me that Andy has got what it takes to win another slam and be in the conversation. Do I see some knees shaking? You betcha. LOL.
_________________
Shaky: You want to know what I think happened with Andy v. Djokovic? I think Andy got thrown off by Djoko’s previous injury problems v. Robredo and didn’t think of Djoko as a serious opponent, but was just waiting for Djoko to cave in. If you noticed, it wasn’t until after the second set, A-Rod began to play better, but he had to come from behind and the pressure caused him to choke. I think it’s one of his downfalls where I see him not taking his opponent seriously, and then it becomes shock attack time. Maybe he’ll learn from those scenarios and not be guilty of a repeat.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Good grief – I don’t understand some of you posters here!

First, congratulations to the Roddick fans for your boy making another GS Final and for playihng a fanstatic match. Now I understand YOUR pain because it hurts when your favorite loses.

What I don’t get is some of my fellow Federer fans who say stuff like “I’m a Federer fan but I really don’t feel good after Roger won this match”. What? Huh? Come again?

YOu are a Federer fan and you don’t feel good when Roger makes history? You don’t feel good when he (in spite of Roddick playing one of his best matches) – Roger hung in there, when plan A wasn’t working well, went to plan b and found a way to win?

I don’t get it!

For those who said Roger didn’t play well. Heck, I’m rewatching the match now and both men played well. And those who are saying “well Roger only relied on his serve and was outplayed on the ground strokes”. Come again…isn’t the SERVE one of the strokes you try to improve so much to give you free points? I mean, I can understand these comments coming from other players fans but coming from Roddick fans? The man who depends on his serve almost more than anyone else except maybe IVO? That’s a testament to Roger that his serve was more of a weapon against Roddock than anything else!

Roddick was the ‘king’ of tiebreaks coming into the final and yet he lost both tiebreaks that they played. That 3rd set tiebreak had some fantastic winners by Roger.

Then some are saying “wait till the US Open”. OK…fine. The thing I do know is that Roger has been very consistent in Grand Slams so he probably will be right there. Roddick can play like this now and lose first round in the next tournament so we’ll just have to wait and see. And Von, I know you’re heartbroken but wishing Andy will be on the same side as Roger at the USOpen because Roddick would surely beat him there? You really don’t know. Roddick hasn’t beaten Roger at the US Open ever so I wouldn’t be so quick to wish that. Roddick may have a better shot reaching the final if he’s on the opposite side as Roger.

Anyway, you guys can continue to write sour grapes saying how the “best player” didn’t win; how Roger only won because he’s lucky, blah, blah, blah… The FACTS are that:

1. Roger now has 15 grand slams
2. Roger has now reached 6 straight grand slam finals (2nd longest record to his 10 straight finals)
3. Roger has now one 6 Wimbledons
4.What is this? 15 out of the last 16 GS Finals? or is it 16 out of the last 17! No matter… it probaly won’t be broken by anyone else anyway.
5. For those who are saying Roddick out-played Roger, look at the stats in the match. Roger had more aces, more winners, more points, etc. and all of that – whether you want to say is all luck or not – they are facts.

So to my true Federer fans – THIS IS A HAPPY MOMENT FOR US TODAY! Let’s just enjoy it inspite of some sour grapes by other posters.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Safin’s a shmuck. I just think Federer could have been more complimentary. It’s not like I’m against Federer. I’m a hardcore Fed fan, ask any of the regular posters here. I just feel like Roddick deserves a smidgen less praise than Fed does for today’s performance. I can picture Roddick holding the winner’s trophy and feeling like it belongs in his hands. Last year, when Nadal won, it just didn’t look right in his hands. But it would look right in Roddick’s hands. I feel like praising Federer is nearly pointless, because his records do enough praising themselves. But, especially after this match, Roddick deserves only positive remarks, not negative. I think he choked in the second set. But I also think Federer should have won the first. So things evened out either way. The 5th setter was anyone’s for the taking. Both were playing very equal. Roddick was owning on serve, Federer was hitting multiple aces in a row. This match was great. Imo, better than last year. A much truer grass-court final, that’s for sure.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

The Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award is given to the player who exhibits the most class during a year and is chosen by the PLAYERS. Fed has won it 6 times now even when he didn’t have his #1 rank. That shows that the players don’t have the same opinion as most of the Fed haters. It comes down them either being jealous of him or blind to how nice a guy he is. All of the commentators and players I have seen talking about Fed say he is a great guy. Time to face the facts. Like TF I’m tired of the Roger character bashing. It’s completely unwarranted.

July 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

nothing better than watching the swiss man take down andy while vacationing in switzerland!

another epic for the books!

July 5th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

FoT: Stop right there! Did I say I wanted Roddick to be on Fed’s side so he can beat him at the USO? No, I didn’t. I said in the future when I see Roddick on Fed’s side I won’t worry because today proved he has the game to beat Federer. And, then i said, ‘bring on the USO. I think before you jump to hasty conclusions, which you are prone to do, you need to read some posts, especially mine twice before replying. You’ve done this in the past
misinterpreting my posts and then leveling accusations. I’d suggest in the future you read TWICE and maybe THRICE before shaking me down, yes? BTW, what’s so wrong even if I had said I wanted Roddick to beat Fed? You’ve done similar, where you’ve been hoping and praying for Fed to beat the other guys. At least I never pray for someone to be beaten, because that’s going a bit too far don’t you think? sheesh.

Another thing you’ve totally misinterpreted my remarks on Federer’s serve. I said, in the past, Fed fans used to ridicule Roddick for depending on his serve, but isn’t that what Fed’s doing nowadays? Whether you want to admit it or not, Fed depends very heavily on his serve to bail him out, and he’s said before the FO that he’s been focusing on fitness AND his serve, so maybe that should tell you something.

As for your other remarks, I’ve only skimmed over them, and won’t even bother to reply. It’s not worth it, I mean really.
_____________
andrea: Yeah, I wondered about your remarks when you were so joyful it was Andy Roddick who would be facing Federer, after Roddick beat Murray. You’ve run true to form as usual and oh so transparent. LOL.

July 5th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

tennis freak – I never said i disliked federers actual game, I dislike the aura of fakeness of humbleness he gives off!! To me i feel that the majority of the tour for awhile there didnt want to challenge him, untill the spanish dood rafa came along.

I do not wish for federer to quit, retire or anything bad. I actually wish for him to lose to RAFA! if u must really know lol why? I love seeing rafas heart and “ugly” unorthodox lookin style.

watching them is like watching ali-frazier bout it out. or Agassi-Sampras

To me rog came in at a different time’, he cant help it he was born in a certain era ect. Hes GREAT! He just sometimes try ease situations with humor, I think today’s comments had bad timming and the cry baby antics of losing after winning so much bugged me this year.
Its a individual pro sport, thus personality would be judged, why else root for a certain peron in this? or root for em just because they win or from a certain place, age? why not personality too? I liked Agassi more then pete there for a while because of it! the long hair early on&/ the uso 1995 especially. Then again i loved the sampras air dunks.
gr8 match today, Rog won. the press is happy, history was made. sooo now we gotta wait till the USO swing

July 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

This is great –

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/blogs/2009-07-05/200907051246818357093.html

July 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

then again thinking about it, I’ll have to re-tract part of one of the previous comments i posted. the past year and half have been very entertaining with the antics and battles! If only now we’d see more serve volley then it would be gr8 like the haydays!

July 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

“With a Little Help From My Friends.” Genius!!

July 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Kudos to Andy Roddick. Beeing Swiss and a RF fan for a long time, I thought, that Andy would have deserved to win today, Fed wasn’t at his best, to nervous, to passive, but still managed to do it. I hope Andy will win a title in Wimbledon in the coming years.

July 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

FoT,

Agree with you 100 %. You are one of the few objective posters here.

I have to laugh at those who are automatically anointing Roddick a huge threat to Federer at the U.S. Open where the bounces are uniform and breaking serve is easier.

They are trying to extrapolate results from a chewed up grass court (where serve generally dominates) – to a hard court where ground strokes play a greater role. Just doesn’t compute.

Hard courts would seemingly favor Federer’s game over Roddick’s but yet they still make this leap of faith.

LMAO….Yes at you Von (Wealthy non-coupon user)

July 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Wow. The only converted breakpoint for Roger was on match point. Talk about stepping up on gas at the right time!
Also, who would have thought before Madrid that Roger would get his #1 ranking back the day after Wimbledon? The conditions for that were: winning Madrid + Roland-Garros + Wimbledon, with Rafa virtually winning no points. Nobody would have signed for that bet. Except Roger. Which is why he’s the GOAT. Period.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

2010 Wimbledon Final
Andy Roddick def. Roger Federer 6-3 6-2 6-4

July 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Many people have been discussing about federer being all time great. To this, I have a simple answer, he is all time great because I did not chose to play tennis. If I had, people would have been discussing “Who Federer?”, instead of him being all time great.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Skorocel Says:

Well, as much as I like Federer, this was obviously one of those matches where the winner wasn’t the better player. The luckier guy won today…

You’re 100% wrong. Fed dominated almost every measure of who played better – aces, winners, winners to errors, point % on first and second servers, % net approaches, total points won, receiving points won. Learn how to read stats instead of making meaningless comments.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

to all the posters saying Roddick played better, learn how to read and interpret match statistics. See above post.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

sensationalsafin Says:

“2010 Wimbledon Final
Andy Roddick def. Roger Federer 6-3 6-2 6-4”

Great. Can you also tell us who wiil win the gold medal in 2012 coz the suspence is killing me.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

I wanted Roddick to win badly. ugh. Well the good news is Roddick has shown that he could beat the guys in the top four. He has gotten better and Roger has gotten worse from their previous years, and with Nadal hurt, Murray and Djokovic still inconsistent in slams, he has a great chance to grab another major. Federer still got his 15th slam, and congratulations to him, but yes he is somewhat of a dick, and I don’t think he will “shatter” the record. His window of slams should be closed in about a year.

Andy really deserves a Wimbledon, considering how bad he wants this, how hard he has worked, how his heart is still there despite having to get himself up from the disappointments. This will probably be the hardest one to get up from. Seeing him lose 16-14 in the fifth is just unbearable. Also, can bspn and the u.s. media give their own countryman some credit instead of the constant praising of Federer. ugh.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Idk, Kimo, I’ll play it out another time.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

From a core Fed fan: Fed, this time, did not beat A-Rod, he just outlast him…and Fed should feel very lucky he did it.
I can´t help but to feel sorry for A-Rod, he is a class-act in & off the court. I love his post match interviews. It is mazing how much A-Rod has improved his overall game.
I was actually cheering for him in today´s final, simply because he defeated “come-on” asshole Hewitt.

July 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

John: “Learn how to read stats instead of making meaningless comments.”

I don’t give a damn about stats! Fed was literally AT THE MERCY of Roddick in that fateful 4th setpoint in the 2nd set breaker, but LUCKILY (yes LUCKILY!) for him, Roddick’s volley (which would normally be a winning one) landed wide… But that didn’t deny Roddick too much, and he was just about fine till the 30th (!) game of the 5th set. Listen? 30th game of the 5th set! There, it’s not always about who’s the better player. Huh, even Federer himself once said (I guess it was after the AO 2009 final) that in a 5 set match, the better player doesn’t always win… Now I’m not saying Roddick was the better of the two today – he just wasn’t any worse than Fed! Had Fed won the 5th set, say, 6:2, then that would be something different, but 16:14 was more or less a tossup. A lottery. It was about who’ll blink first, and unfortunately for Roddick (and luckily for Fed), it was him who blinked sooner…

July 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Federer is betterer: „The only converted breakpoint for Roger was on match point. Talk about stepping up on gas at the right time!“

Yes, he definitely stepped up on the gas when it mattered the most, but on the other hand, this just shows you how well the American was serving. Frankly, when was the last time that Fed had to wait till the VERY LAST set to break an opponent in a best of 5 set match?!

July 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Gordo: „Today’s result must make Murray feel a bit better.“

Very well said!

July 5th, 2009 at 7:39 pm

„Last year, when Nadal won, it just didn’t look right in his hands.“

LOL, sensationalsafin! To tell you the truth, I wouldn’t mind him holding that trophy, if only not for that biting… LOL! Talk about a dagger in Fed’s heart :-)

July 5th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Von: „That second set tie-break reminds me of the ‘06 Shanghai Master’s Cup when Andy hit that overhead out at match point. It was deja vu all over again and he’d certainly remember it for a long time.“

You’re reading my thoughts here! To tell you the truth, when A-Rod was about to commence that „fateful“ rally, I was thinking something like this: „This is certainly the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT POINT in Andy Roddick’s career! If he wins it, it will be impossible for Fed to come back from a 2 sets to love deficit, but if he loses it, Fed’s gonna win this one for sure…“

July 5th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Skorocel: “16:14 was more or less a tossup. A lottery. It was about who’ll blink first”

Wouldn’t you say the same about last year’s final? 9-7 in the fifth set with no light… Nonetheless everyone sang Rafa’s praises for taking it, so you have to do the same for Fed this year.

Also, regarding that failed fourth set point in the second. It’s tough, I feel bad for Roddick, but the fact is that Fed is not exactly lucky, instead Roddick did not execute on it. That’s what champs do. Think Rafa would have let that one fly wide?

That said I’m impressed with Roddick’s performance and I do hope he takes one more Slam. Perhaps the Open this year…

July 5th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Skorocel,

If Federer was so much at Roddick’s mercy, why wasn’t he able to break him at least once in 15 tries during the 5th set? It seems to me Roddick was the luckier of the two to have lasted that long. Federer proved he was stronger both mentally and physically. Roddick had many chances to win but he never seized the moment when it counted the most. He just doesn’t have the poise of a champion. He doesn’t deserve a Wimbledon championship if he can’t close the deal.

Federer works off court just as hard as Roddick does. Probably harder. He deserves just as many Wimbledon trophies as he gets. He maximizes the most of his God given talent through hard work and intelligent planning. He’s earned everything he’s won!

July 5th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

JCZ: “Wouldn’t you say the same about last year’s final? 9-7 in the fifth set with no light…”

Yeah, I would, but you can’t quite compare these 2 matches… Remember, Nadal could’ve won that match in 3 STRAIGHT SETS! Even the most hardcore Fed fan will admit the Spaniard was the BETTER man for the most part of the match, including the final set (where Fed had PERMANENT troubles to hold his serve, facing numerous 0-30 situations). And btw, why the need to bring up that “light issue”? As far as I know, the conditions were the SAME for both players…

July 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

First of all, congratulations to both players are in order. Roddick for playing the best match of his life, and Federer for becoming the record holder in GS titles won.

I have to confess, I didn’t stay up to watch this match. I told myself a few nights earlier that if the final was Murray and Fed, I would stay up to watch it. But if it was Roddick and Fed, I would not. In my mind, Murray was the only player of the two Andys capable of making a match out of the final. How wrong could I have been? Now I really regret not staying up.

Last year’s final was going to be difficult to top. John McEnroe called it the Greatest Match Ever Played. Who would have thought only a year later it would be outdone? 16-14 in the 5th? Now I have to wait for someone to upload the match into a torrent so I can download it.

I only read match reports. Roddick apparently had 6-2 in the 2nd set tiebreak, with a bagful of set points for a two set lead. I sincerely hope that Roddick will take only positives from this match. I hope that this tie break doesn’t leave permanent emotional scars on Roddick. He should rue his missed opportunities, but not for long. He should not reflect back on it in the shower 10 years time, and instead just remind himself of the awesome match he played, even if he came short. My commiserations go to Roddick and his fans.

This is the third final in a row that Federer has stolen two tiebreak sets to make it five sets. It’s about time someone beat him in a tiebreak at Wimbledon. I do not know if Federer upped his game at 2-6 down in the 2nd set tiebreak or if it was Roddick who choked like Nadal did last year. Either way, Fed is lucky.

Roddick is well and truly back to his best. All credit to Stefanki who has done a remarkable job transforming him. Could the ‘big 4’ stretch to a big 5?

The last 3 Wimbledon mens finals to me is indisputable proof that women do not earn the equal pay that they have been getting. When was the last time a womens final had the tension and drama of the last 3 mens finals?

P.S. I won’t buy any more of the ‘Wimbledon is slow green clay’ nonsense. Today they played 77 games. Two tie break sets with 16-14 in the 5th, and they did it in less time than Nadal v Djokovic in 3 sets in Madrid (the first set was a rout for Djokovic to boot), which in itself was not the slowest clay court out there. These points had to have been over quick with not much resistance on serve. Roddick himself has done very well at Wimbledon with 3 finals and a semi, losing only to Federer. He is not exactly a slow court player, so if it was green clay like people called it last year, then how is it Roddick has played so well on it?

Congratulations again to Federer and Roddick for making magic once again. Wimbledon really has been the biggest slam of recent years.

July 5th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

I only mentioned the light because the set was that ridiculously unbelievable and had gotten to a point were perhaps it was as you mentioned a toss-up. It was great I’m not taking anything away from Nadal. There has to be a winner though, and in these long 5 setters it is all about physically and mentally outlasting your opponent which Nadal did last year and Federer did today.

July 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Von: “And (2) andy didn’t cry and steal Fed’s thunder. When all is said and done, Andy is THE man!! Grace, style and class, not to mention that handsome face.”

I’ll have to respect Roddick a lot for that. It took a big man to contain the disappointment. In 2007 Nadal waited till the locker room before he let loose the tears. I have no doubt Andy will cry himself too, but he had the decency to do it privately instead of ruining Federer’s moment, even if Fed has no qualms doing such a thing himself. I presume Fed weeped as usual after winning this match? Or has he ran out of tears?

I just hope that tie break doesn’t scar Andy for life. These kind of wasted opportunities can do this to a person. You’d only be human if you let it. Federer no doubt has a few demons himself, as does every good player. The true test is how Roddick recovers from this. Will he bounce back and beat Federer at the US Open, or will he get depressed? I hope not the latter. He has much to be proud of and little to be ashamed of. Federer is Federer, and Andy just had the misfortune of being on the other side of a man who happened to be chasing history.

July 5th, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Why do a lot of posts here say Roddick played the better game? Didn’t he lose? If you lose, how can you be the better player? Only spin doctors have such kind of logic. He did play well enough to last 5 sets but in the end the better player won. It is what happens in the end the matters most and whoever is left standing at the end is the better player.

July 5th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

My take on those who claim Roddick played better was that they were not used to seeing Andy win several points against Federer. In almost all their previous matches, Roddick could not do much. But this time, he actually won several points. Therefore, compare that to his previous matches with Federer, this Wimbledon final gave his fans the illusion that Andy played better that Roger. As some people pointed above, look at the statistics of the game. Roger did better than Andy in almost all aspects of the game. But then of course, the human mind creates defense mechanisms like denial to ease the pain. That is what some bloggers here resort to.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Hi there,
I really hated Roddick game before today. and today Roddick was clearly overwhelming in the majority of the rallies and by showing Fed limits. True, I was rooting for fed to make history but as the match progressed I really started wanting Roddick to win because he was simply the best and unfortunately the big UNLUCKY. I congratulate Fed for his history making BUT I think with the quality of play he showed both in RG and Wimby it will finitely stop here. I really wanted him to win but I have to concede that he was so LUCKY to win both RF and Wimby thanks to Raffa injury and to huge LUCK against Roddick. one last word for Roddick, please keep up the good work you really deserve another GS and hopefully it will be the USO.
sheers

July 5th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Rod Laver would not call Federer the best ever and keeps stating the Roger is “the best in his era” because he is one of those people in denial. He still wants to keep the illusion that he is the best ever and is not willing to concede that perception. Sampras is more honest and secure in his skin that is why he is willing to admit the truth that Federer is the best.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

The only thing I disagree with is that the passing shot volley that Roddick missed in the first tie break was an easy put away. I just watched it again and that ball has very high on his backhand side and dipping with a lot of action on it. That’s a very tough shot, especially as you are moving forward to the net. I wouldn’t be to hard on Roddick missing that one.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

This was one of the those matches where it is sad when one loses and one wins but that is tennis. Fed may not have been at his most pretty but that was because of Roddick’s fabulous play.

I have never been a fan of Roddick because of his one dimensional play, the serve. However in this tournament, he showed what he is capable of. I hope he continues and becomes a contender with the top four. It was great to watch him in the last two matches! I found myself routing for him just because of his play.

Congrats to Federer! As Roddick said in his press con, people don’t give credit to how hard Fed works since he makes it look so easy. He works hard on his game and it has paid off over the past 6 years particularly today when he needed it.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

This match eclipsed last year’s Wimbledon final! Who would have thought that just 12 months later…

Roger should have 23-24 majors by the time he is done. He is just 27 years old. Give him 2 more majors a year for the next 4 years.

Rafa’s return should make things interesting….

Go Roger!!! Kudo’s to A-Rod. Best wishes on a speedy recovery to Rafa.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

“Its a individual pro sport, thus personality would be judged”

KillerC makes a valid point here that I’d never really thought about; simply that we’re much more inclined to be drawn (or not drawn) to a tennis player because of the individual intensity of the sport. A spectator almost gets a sense that s/he knows the players. It’s weird, because obviously we don’t. But from how they act on court, to how they carry themselves, to how they act off court (to our knowledge), all the way through to what they say in their pressers, it’s almost impossible not to make a cursory judgment about a player if watching regularly. Therefore, even while a spectator may think, wow, that player has a great game, s/he may feel indifferent towards that player or dislike or admiration or whatever. It’s inevitable almost. I watch a lot of matches and often start out not really caring who wins (not always but certainly a good portion of the time), and yet, I’ll almost imperceptibly find myself gravitating to one player or the other as the matches goes on, not necessarily based on how s/he is playing or who I think will win. Probably just a result of something as ineffable as human nature.

Well, I liked Roddick the first time I watched him. He had a punky attitude and such raw power. Very exciting young player – and watching him go through ups and downs and evolutions over the years has made me admire him only more so. I sure hope he can win at least one more slam.

blah, I agree with your 6:35 pm post, and I hope Andy R takes away the positives from this loss, even though it’ll be probably the most difficult one he’ll ever have had to get over.

July 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

I will say Roddick’s ground strokes were impressive. However, the talk that he overwhelmed Federer in the rallies is a bit much. Roger often did the serve forehand combo in the match so it was not a rally per se but he clubbed a lot of winners off of the return. Therefore, when Roger was losing some of the longer points admittedly a surprise given their previous matches, one still has to take into account that Roger punished short balls so well as to prevent a lot of rallies in the first place. Had he punished them a little less frequently maybe their would have been more rallies to judge. He hit so many forehand winners that in a sense the points he lost were when he did not have the rapier forehand working quite as well and losing those points is not shocking. An earlier post pointed out the ace, winner and total point leads Roger had. I don’t think numbers say everything, but they say enough to say Roger more than held his own with his ground strokes.

July 5th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Dan Martin: “Roger more than held his own with his ground strokes.”

… which says a lot because he didn’t play that well off the ground today …

July 5th, 2009 at 10:19 pm

Why do my comments always await moderation but no one elses?

July 5th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

My comments which were awaiting moderation were deleted. I really have to wonder why. I’m going to repost them exactly as they were and see if they go through this time.

——-

First of all, congratulations to both players are in order. Roddick for playing the best match of his life, and Federer for becoming the record holder in GS titles won.

I have to confess, I didn’t stay up to watch this match. I told myself a few nights earlier that if the final was Murray and Fed, I would stay up to watch it. But if it was Roddick and Fed, I would not. In my mind, Murray was the only player of the two Andys capable of making a match out of the final. How wrong could I have been? Now I really regret not staying up.

Last year’s final was going to be difficult to top. John McEnroe called it the Greatest Match Ever Played. Who would have thought only a year later it would be outdone? 16-14 in the 5th? Now I have to wait for someone to upload the match into a torrent so I can download it.

I only read match reports. Roddick apparently had 6-2 in the 2nd set tiebreak, with a bagful of set points for a two set lead. I sincerely hope that Roddick will take only positives from this match. I hope that this tie break doesn’t leave permanent emotional scars on Roddick. He should rue his missed opportunities, but not for long. He should not reflect back on it in the shower 10 years time, and instead just remind himself of the awesome match he played, even if he came short. My commiserations go to Roddick and his fans.

This is the third final in a row that Federer has stolen two tiebreak sets to make it five sets. It’s about time someone beat him in a tiebreak at Wimbledon. I do not know if Federer upped his game at 2-6 down in the 2nd set tiebreak or if it was Roddick who choked like Nadal did last year. Either way, Fed is lucky.

Roddick is well and truly back to his best. All credit to Stefanki who has done a remarkable job transforming him. Could the ‘big 4′ stretch to a big 5?

The last 3 Wimbledon mens finals to me is indisputable proof that women do not earn the equal pay that they have been getting. When was the last time a womens final had the tension and drama of the last 3 mens finals?

P.S. I won’t buy any more of the ‘Wimbledon is slow green clay’ nonsense. Today they played 77 games. Two tie break sets with 16-14 in the 5th, and they did it in less time than Nadal v Djokovic in 3 sets in Madrid (the first set was a rout for Djokovic to boot), which in itself was not the slowest clay court out there. These points had to have been over quick with not much resistance on serve. Roddick himself has done very well at Wimbledon with 3 finals and a semi, losing only to Federer. He is not exactly a slow court player, so if it was green clay like people called it last year, then how is it Roddick has played so well on it?

Congratulations again to Federer and Roddick for making magic once again. Wimbledon really has been the biggest slam of recent years.

————

Von: “And (2) andy didn’t cry and steal Fed’s thunder. When all is said and done, Andy is THE man!! Grace, style and class, not to mention that handsome face.”

I’ll have to respect Roddick a lot for that. It took a big man to contain the disappointment. In 2007 Nadal waited till the locker room before he let loose the tears and then got reprimanded for crying by Toni!. I have no doubt Andy will cry himself too, but he had the decency to do it privately instead of ruining Federer’s moment, even if Fed has no qualms doing such a thing himself. I presume Fed weeped as usual after winning this match? Or has he ran out of tears?

I just hope that tie break doesn’t scar Andy for life. These kind of wasted opportunities can do this to a person. You’d only be human if you let it.

Federer no doubt has a few demons himself, as does every good player. The true test is how Roddick recovers from this. Will he bounce back and beat

Federer at the US Open, or will he get depressed? I hope not the latter. He has much to be proud of and little to be ashamed of. Federer is Federer, and Andy just had the misfortune of being on the other side of a man who happened to be chasing history.

————

Von Says:

“Kimo: A footnote to my post. It looked like Federer played ‘the worst’ match ONLY because Roddick took it to him and he didn’t have any place to go, but try to hit aces to bail himself out in the tight spots. Do try to be more analytical, please.”

I remember this being how Fed bailed himself out of that 2007 tussle with Nadal. It was annoying to watch all those opportunies Nadal worked so hard to create go by with an ace or unreturnable serve. Fed might just be the ultimate clutch server.

Finally, can someone tell me if they played into the twilight and darkness became an issue like last year?

July 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Giner, no, twilight was not an issue. However, do you know that weird time when half the court is in shadow and half in sunlight? Well that’s how some of the fifth set marathon was played. I saw Andy whiff on one ball when he was running forward to hit it, and the ball landed right where he came out of the shadows and into the sun. So that may’ve been a bit difficult to deal with, given the pressure-cooker situation, but not something either of them hadn’t experienced before.

Yeah, Roddick was very composed – enough so to joke with Pete in his on-court comments after the match. But there can be little doubt that this loss was like a dagger in his heart. He looked crushed but handled it with strength and grace and wit.

July 5th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

To all of you who are ranking Roger down the coal – tough!

The RIGHT person won because he WON the match. Regardless of what you feel like “oh, Roddick played his heart out so he deserved the win”…BS! If people gave out trophies because someone ‘deserved the win…half the ATP players would have grand slams!

Cindy_Brady, hang in there. We Fed fans have gone throught he ringer the last year or so with people saying he’s over the hill, or that he’ll never win a grand slam because he’s playing against “stronger competition”, blah, blah, blah… Well Roger proved them wrong so I don’t care what anyone say – I am proud to be a Federer fan and I’m happy!

No matter what people say – they can’t take that #15 away from Roger!

July 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Some of the posts here confuse me. When Roddick missed that volley to win the second set, why do they claim Roger was lucky? I see it as a dumb mistake by the one who hit that wayward shot. I guess that is how sour grapes work.

July 5th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

Once again, Federina was extremely lucky at a grand slam. Again he won a grand slam without having to face either Nadal, Murray or Djokovic. How much luckier can a person get?

It’s nice to see that Roddick has finally grown up. He deserved to win the final. But this defeat is probably a lesson for the racist Americans who have always rejoiced in Rafa’s misfortune.

July 5th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Even with the high level of play over about 6 1/2 sets, the historical ramifications, and being that were talking about THE GS final of finals, the conclusion seemed strangely anti-climatic to me and just plain queer, articulated by many here already.
The crowd even seemed strangely subdued as Fed made his victory lap.

Other than the great play, everything seemed so contrived. The awkward interviews (fed didn’t have a lot to say?), wardrobe malfunctions, jmac, etc…it was like being at Disneyworld. You go on the ride of your life and then can’t wait to get out of the park as the mouse is chasing you with one hand in your pocket. I don’t’ know, I’m old school and still haven’t reconciled with the fame and fortune heaped upon pro athletes today. I am reminded of this fact every spring when the bill arrives for my NFL team’s renewal. Are we witnessing a time when the cart has seperated from the horse and is in the ditch?

Anyway, regardless of his realist view during pressers, this is the best 2 weeks andy has ever had other than his USO run in 2003. He is definitely a contender for the upcoming Open. I’ve sparred with Von over andy in the past. He tends to get lumped into the post-sampras era of non-achievers like fish, blake, query, et al. Americans are not used to having a GS title drought. Andy is a hell of player and good guy. People tend to mistake his sardonic humor and glib comments for arragance. I enjoy his interviews more than most players.
As americans we should appreciate him more. Like him or not, he’s our best hope right now.

Fed did not play his best match today, helped a lot by roddick. Fed must have thought this was a bad dream as the guy across the net was an amalgram of himself and rafa
with a bigger serve. Is it is true that the best/player team doesn’t always win. I thought that roddick won the fight but fed outpointed him on the final scorecard.
Even with his eccentricities, and I haven’t met a swiss yet who wasn’t eccentric, fed is equal to tiger woods, jordan, ali, et al in that he has 1)totally dominated his sport for an unprecedented amount of time and 2) is truly an crossover sport international star. No one else on the tour can even come close to that. Even Pete or Andre never achived this level of recognition despite their achievments. I feel fortunate to be around to watch him. he’s the best guy to ever pick up a racket. He truly does play the game out of love. Consequently, millions of recreational players around the world see a little of themselves in Fed which contributes greatly to his popularity. He also has a great shot at number 16 in the USO.

Finally, take heart you american tennis fans. Pmac seems to be producing some junior talent. We had two US boys playing each other in the junior semis. Can any historians out there check and see when the last time that happened?
Also, one thing to shake up the post henin/sharapva blues is the return of kim clijsters to the tour and in time for the USO. I like Kim and would love to see her beat up on some of the poseur russians like safina. Talk about game, heart and humility. Looking forward to the HC season start.

Ps would love to see the Tennis X authors do a piece on the state of US Men and Womens juniors. where are the next pete and william sisters at? Peace be with you.

July 5th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

roger owes rafa’s knees a big thanks!!

July 5th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

fed is afraid: “roger owes rafa’s knees a big thanks!!”
LOL, it’s always something… Any thoughts on your new nick?

July 5th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

I agree with previous posts that, assuming Roddick can take some confidence from these 2 weeks, he should be a contender to go deep in Flushing Meadows next month.

At the same time, though, Federer doesn’t really have anything left to prove to anyone except perhaps himself (as if the question is now “How high can you go?”), so I’m curious to see if he truly starts to open up his shoulders and play much more freely.

From what I could tell, today he played quite tentatively. Granted, some of that may have been because Roddick wasn’t giving him anything to work with, but I really don’t think his groundstroke game was on, nor was he hitting his groundstrokes with much authority. Yea, he had 50+ winners if you discount his aces, but he didn’t exactly shoot the lights out with his forehand.

Here’s to watching a shackle-free Federer at the US Open in August!

July 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Polo – I agree with you on that. Your opponent missing a volley is not “luck” – it has to do with the opponent messing up at an unfortunate time. No one plays perfectly and unforced errors are a part of the game just like net cords, bad line calls/faulty Hawk Eye, shadows on the court, inconsiderate fans shouting out at random times & distracting you, wind, blazing hot sun, humidity, rain, etc.

If Roddick had won I would have been incredibly happy, but at the end of the day the person who pulls out the win is the deserving winner. Period.

Giner – sometimes my comments await moderation too and some occasionally get rejected even though there is nothing offensive in my posts.

July 5th, 2009 at 11:57 pm

do you honestly think a 100 percent rafa would have lost to robin soderling at roland garros? or a 100 percent rafa would have lost to roger in the final?
or at wimbledon?

July 5th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

I just finished watching the match on Tivo, I gotta say.. I feel so bad for Andy. He had the match on his racquet pretty much in that second set tiebreak. But he also showed great spirit in coming back and taking it to five. I think this was Andy’s last real chance to get it done and I don’t believe he’ll get closer than he did today.

About the match: I gotta say the last three sets were actually pretty boring I thought. I always felt Roger would come through after he got the 2nd so there didn’t seem to be much drama to me. Just serve serve serve serve.. ad nausea.

Congrats to Roger and I’m happy that I was able to make it through the entire day without hearing the result. Crushing loss for Andy and I hope he can start showing better results again.

Did anyone else think Roger was a bit weird in the interview after the match? Something about it just seemed off. Maybe he was just tired, I dont know.

July 5th, 2009 at 11:59 pm

fed is afraid:

Get over yourself. That’s the whole point — it’s about who can rise to the occasion in these matches, who can be more fresh/fit, and frankly, who plans his calendar out better to give him the best possible chance. Like Federer said today, it’s not the fault of the winner if the other guy doesn’t come ready to play.

I think the issue of Rafa’s poor scheduling this spring (Barcelona?) during the clay season has already been beaten to death on these walls…

July 6th, 2009 at 12:01 am

This is a match that will raised much of ‘what if’, ‘could had been’, ‘should had been’…….

July 6th, 2009 at 12:04 am

I was going to stop poting but really had to, to prove the following is so hilarious, ho, ho, ho.

“Cindy_Brady, hang in there. We Fed fans have gone throught he ringer the last year or so with people saying he’s over the hill, or that he’ll never win a grand slam because he’s playing against “stronger competition”, blah, blah, blah… Well Roger proved them wrong so I don’t care what anyone say – I am proud to be a Federer fan and I’m happy!”

FoT: Wake up! Do you actually post here? For your information, Cindy Brady has stated umpteen times (look up this word) that she ‘HATES’ Roger Federer. I told you that you have a comprehension problem, but that at the time I was being kinda facetious, however, I’m now 100 percent convinced that you really do. LOL.

PS: No one is ‘ranking’ Federer over the coals, maybe you think they are ‘raking’ him, but I don’t think so.
_____________
Polo: Is that really you? Do you remember Dubai?

July 6th, 2009 at 12:12 am

oops, correction: ‘poting’ should be “posting”.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:15 am

Though I was all behind Roger Federer to win the Wimbledon finals, it saddens me to have to watch someone lose. Andy would have been an equally or more deserving champion considering how well he’s played throughout the tournament. Had he adopted this new play-style and his calm on-court demeanor 5 or 6 years ago, god only knows how many grand-slams he’d had won.

Another epic for the history books.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said of women’s tennis. Another forgettable grand slam finals. WTA should seriously start looking at the women’s tour before it worsens beyond repair.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:15 am

“I think the issue of Rafa’s poor scheduling this spring (Barcelona?) during the clay season has already been beaten to death on these walls…”

It’s not the scheduling. He did the same thing every other year. The tendonitis problem flares up every year. It’s usually at the end of the year before the Masters and after all the slams. He skips or does badly at the end of the year. He had been tempting fate all this time, and now it happened during the busiest period (during two densely packed slams). Bad luck.

fed is afraid Says:

“do you honestly think a 100 percent rafa would have lost to robin soderling at roland garros? or a 100 percent rafa would have lost to roger in the final?
or at wimbledon?”

Forget it. What happened happened. Accept it, or you’ll continue to look like a fool. Excuses can be made for a great number of losses for a great number of players. What if Rafa was 100%? What if Roddick didn’t miss that volley at set point? What if someone slipped steroids into Fed’s drink and he got busted afterward? What if little green men from Mars came to Earth and blew us all up? What if you stopped asking stupid questions?

As the guy above me said, you’ll just have to get over it. No point sour graping now. Things happened the way they did, and Federer has 15 slams. Yes there was luck involved — there has to be. But he earned his titles fair and square. Now he’s on a winning streak: Madrid, RG, Wimbledon and has his #1 back. Looking very similar to Rafa’s run last year. Things are not looking better for Rafa soon either. He has a ton of points to defend coming up, and the 800 for his Gold Medal is indefensible. The best he can do is focus everything he’s got for the US Open. Winning it would put him in a contest with Federer on who had the better season, but baby steps…

July 6th, 2009 at 12:21 am

Giner:

I believe your posts become hooked up in moderation because of the length. Mine get chewed up and/or hooked up occasionally. perhaps you could split up the posts by topics and/or replies to specific posters. Join the club.

During the FO, I heard the ESPN commentators mention that Nadal let slip he’s aiming to chase Federer’s GS records. I suppose he has tied him with MS, so the next hurdle is the GS. We shall see how it all turns out.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:29 am

Don’t anyone be surprised if they never see another tear fall from Fed on a tennis court. No falling to the ground at the end of this one…just a quick jump and mild salutation. Fed has accomplished what he set out to do. I hope that drive stays with him but I fear that all of us will be loses now that the 15 has been reached and fatherhood is just around the corner.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:31 am

Joe W:

“As americans we should appreciate him more. Like him or not, he’s our best hope right now.”

Maybe the place to start is with the ESPN and/or NBC commentators, and, hello, Tennis.X. Today, I muted Johnnie Mc and the drama queen, Ted Robinson. They need to take a page from the Brits on how to gee up their own son of the soil. The Brits are extremely complimentary of Roddick, which goes to show, a prophet is never recognized in his own country.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:33 am

“do you honestly think a 100 percent rafa would have lost to robin soderling at roland garros? or a 100 percent rafa would have lost to roger in the final? or at wimbledon?”

These three questions are terrible.

1) I can’t believe you’re still not giving Soderling any credit: truly pathetic. Your boy looked just fine in every previous round and in Madrid, and if you walk out there you don’t get to make the BS nagging injury excuse. (Again, Fed is a tool for doing it in 08 also.)

2) Yes, I think Rafa would have kicked Roger’s tail at RG as he had in 07/08. Of course, I also didn’t give Nadal a shot at wimbledon 08 after Fed beat him in 06/07 either, but he miracled that one out — so stop assuming an outcome based on the last outing. Roddick didn’t have a prayer today either after 04/05… how many different ways can we sell these guys short today? Stop.

3) As for wimbledon, Federer would have been the overwhelming favorite at Wimbledon regardless of Nadal being there or not — the guy’s won 6 of the last 7 times and is far and away the most accomplished grass court player around.

And more importantly they would have been in opposite draws — it’s assuming a lot that Rafa would have even made it to his semi. Give a little credit to the players that were actually there this time: the Roddick fans will concede nothing here, and neither will the Murray fans.

Your guy is going to come back soon and everyone hopes he plays well. Everyone who loves tennis appreciates Nadal, so the last thing Rafa needs is you alienating all those fans by being such a sore loser.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:39 am

How are you not a troll with a name like Fed is Afraid? You add absolutely nothing.

You’re terrible. And I’m terrible for responding to you.

VON — “I suppose he has tied him with MS, so the next hurdle is the GS. We shall see how it all turns out.” What is MS?

July 6th, 2009 at 12:43 am

put me down all you want, who cares
facts are facts
no rafa so roger wins
if rafa was there, roger loses
and andy was the better player
roger is the luckiest player in tennis history

July 6th, 2009 at 12:51 am

One of my favorite quotes from Roddick: “I’m extremely satisfied with what I’ve done so far in this tournament. How you get there is details” (1-27-2009, after beating Djoko at AO).
—————————

KillerC,
I like Fed’s “personality,” the way Fed taunts these bummers, with that “fakeness of humbleness.” He’s here to stay for another 2-3 years, so it is not wise for them to be dreaming of freebies. It never has been. Winners know that cute press room or pre/post-match acts do not earn points on the court, don’t yield 15 Slams, and don’t win the hearts of over 70% fans around the globe. Winners’ priorities lie elsewhere; refining mannerism is secondary to them; and they know one cannot please all. To conclude, in Roddick’s aphorism, these are just the details, momentary, soon to be forgotten.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:53 am

“What if little green men from Mars came to Earth and blew us all up? What if you stopped asking stupid questions?”

LMAO, Giner. Comedic genius right there. I had to show that to my friend it was so funny.

Aside from that. In tennis, on any given day, anyone can beat anyone. Just so happens today, both player could’ve beaten each other.

Ty, I agree with you. Something felt odd at the end. Like, Federer was all psyched when he finally won, but his interview was like, uhh ok.

Von, I want them to fire McEnroe and Robinson and tell them to go —- themselves. Small example of McEnroe’s commentary:
In the beginning, “So you gotta feel like Fed’s the heavy favorite. He’s lost only 1 set in their 3 matches here…”
After the first set, “Roddick’s done so much to improve, Stefanki is really helping him, I don’t know how many times I can repeat how much Andy’s backhand has improved but I’ll keep saying it…”
After the second set, “That tiebreaker is really gonna haunt Roddick. Let’s see how he’ll recover from it, if he can at all…”
So on and so forth. McEnroe never EVER shut up.

Robinson’s commentary:
“Federer just hit a cross court forehand, wow.”
“Roddick just hit a backhand up the line, wow.”
“Federer just went up 2 sets to 1, wow.”
“The score is 15 all, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be here, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be here, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be here, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be treated to this 3 times, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be here, wow.”
“We’re so lucky to be here, wow.”
THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS. WE CAN’T SEE THIS FOR OURSELVES. NBC ABSOLUTELY NEEDS YOU TO TELL US EVERYTHING THAT, APPARENTLY, WE CAN’T SIMPLY SEE FOR OURSELVES.

Unbelievable.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:56 am

Shaky: MS = Masters Shields. I believe they are tied.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:00 am

Instead of feel sorry for Von, I think I should congrats her for his sweetheart’s amazing performance yesterday. Absolutely impressive! Based on both players’ performance, I would say that both players deserve the trophy evenly. Not 40-60, not 49- 51 but its 50-50.

Von says:
“I know you’ve got zero class, and I’m not going to allow you to bring me down to your level, so pound away all you want, I won’t answer anymore.”

Good for you! I admire your ability to ignore the comments from this ‘high school loser who really thinks she’s a bad girl.’ Previously, she’d accused Nadal of using drugs and now she tries to turn her negative aura to Roddick. So cheap!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:00 am

SS: I can’t stand Johnnie Mc and his little side kick, Robinson. They drive me bonkers. I swear Johnnie Mc is entering his dotage.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:03 am

Ezorra, thank you so much for your positive comments. And, thank you also for remembering the ‘high school loser’. I’m sure you remember how much she hated Federer, then she liked Nadal, then she accused Nadal of using drugs, and now, she has her claws in Roddick and his fans, especially me. sheesh.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:07 am

Last year they both stopped talking in the 5th set. Why didn’t they do the same this year? Von, you get mad at people on this blog for disrespecting Roddick, well atleast people here are just random fans. Robinson is stupid and does whatever Mac does, who happens to disrespect Roddick. Like, wtf dude. Wtf.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:08 am

SS: “Robinson is stupid and does whatever Mac does, who happens to disrespect Roddick. Like, wtf dude. Wtf.”

Thanks for the laughs, I needed that. LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:18 am

sensationalsafin. LOL! You had me cracking up at your 12:56 J-Mac but especially your Ted Robinson imitation. Ha! They’re ridiculous at times. J-Mac is definitely obvious in his support too. Not quite like Cliff Drysdale who loves Fed in a, um, kind of over-the-top way (I once heard him waxing poetic when Fed hit a shot not about the shot but about Fed’s back muscles – hmmmm). And Ted just seems so bright-eyed and bushy-tailed that he makes me kinda wanna puke. “Wow” = MUTE.

Joe W said “wardrobe malfunctions” – there were a few. Did anyone think Pete looked vaguely like he stepped off the Sopranos set? I almost called him Tony, with that wide tie and 70s suit. LOL. Oh well, at least he showed up.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:30 am

fed is afraid,
“facts are facts
no rafa so roger wins
if rafa was there, roger loses”
thats a fact??.. its like Miami, Hamburg, Masters Cup 06 and 07, Wimbledon 06 and 07 and Madrid 09 never happened.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:32 am

Whatever, the real world number one is back to his deserved place. Nadal is an awesome player but when you compare him to the GOAT of course his records arent as good.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:34 am

fed is afraid i totally agree with you! you are absolutely spot on! soderling nor federer would have beaten a 100% nadal! why do you think there are people who go to great lengths trying to make sure federer won’t have to play nadal? praying, hoping, and predicting that his knees will prevent him from performing at a high level. these others players, like haas, soderling, blake, etc are brainwashed and indocrinated by federer. roger uses them to help him keep nadal out of his reach. federer said himself, he could win the french if nadal was out of the tournament. that goes to show that he doesn’t truly respect these other playes game or believe that anybody else can beat him, especially in a slam final, but nadal. check out how fiercely soderling played nadal at roland garros, then, when he got to the final against roger, he had forgotten how to play. roger knows that they are not going to beat him, because they want to be his friends and also soderling doesn’t like nadal for some unknown reason. therefore, he’s only interested in beating nadal for fifteen minutes of fame! the same guys could beat federer some of time if they tried hard enough. matter of fact, i came across tommy haas’s comments that he made in an interview after he lost to federer last week; when he was asked about almost beating roger at the french, he replied, ” i was happy roger won the match because i know how much he wanted to win the french open and i was rooting for him to win.” how stupid is that? roger had 14 majors and haas has zero and he has the audacity to say he was happy roger beat him. roger has these guys in his back pocket. listen carefully to their interviews after roger beats them; they all say the same things, “roger is the greatest; he doesn’t have any weaknesses’ he doesn’t let you play your game, bla, bla, bla.” you hear one interview, you’ve heard them all. notice how roger makes fun of them in his sneaky way. if soderling was a nadal beater consistently as a lot of people would like for him be, why hasn’t he beaten nadal in their previous meetings? to my knowledge, he had not beaten nadal one time prior to roland garros. that speaks volumes!

i wanted to see how roddick would perform in the final. either way you look at it, overall, roddick outplayed federer, but federer outlasted roddick! federer played ordinary in this wimbledon final. the scores indicate that! he bearly won the tiebreaks. you have to understand that roger was playing andy roddick, who has a poor record against him and everybody thought he would wipe the court up with roddick, and the match was also played on grass, where federer is suppose to be king! so, you are right, facts are facts! in the end roger has what the majority wanted him to have, 15 majors and #1 ranking. just maybe, after the sportwriters, commentators, fans, whomever have written and said everything conceivable about how great roger federer is, maybe then, we will get to discuss another topic before this century comes to an end!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:57 am

Federer – Nadal Says:
“Make it 19-2 please and let’s get to the presentation ceremony. 18-2 is the worst record any former no.1 has had – ever. Roddick is just federer’s bitch – plain and simple. To ignore that is plain stupidity. Roddick might have better chances if he can ignore that number like some of his mentally-challenged fans. Unfortunately for Andy, he is a little smarter than that.

Well played Andy, but Federer is just betterer! The only player who is in Roger’s league is Nadal. Rest all are beneficiaries of the misery Nadal inflicted on Federer. Djokovic and Murray wouldnt make a dent on Fed’s game if Nadal wasn’t dealing those big psychological blows on Federer.”

Federer-Nadal cannot be your true name. So whoever you are… GO TO HELL! Rafa and Fed are not 100 times better than others. They’re just a little better and a little luckier too. I hope Murray, Roddick, JMDP and Djokovic beat the hell out of Fed and Rafa in the USO 09 so that it’d finally be proved that you are among the BIGGEST EVER idiots.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:15 am

Fed is not the GOAT, he’d never be. And Rafa, I won’t talk more than what I’ve already had about him.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:19 am

hud, no need to resort to hostility sweetheart, it doesn’t change a thing! the truth always hurts!

July 6th, 2009 at 2:22 am

Below’s a link to a pretty good article on Roddick’s impressive effort and the pain thereafter; there’s also a small article at the ATP site, about where Roddick is at now and how much he’s improved. You have to look for it, but it’s there at least! It’s called “Roddick earns high praise.”

Weirdly, there’s also a big ad on the ATP page that says “Buy Roger’s gear” which links up to Tennis Warehouse and Nike and “RF clothing” shopping. I was a little surprised; does the ATP have merchandise tie ins with clothing and gear companies? I’ve never seen advertising like that on the front page of their website before as I thought it was a neutral organization (i.e., no clothing, racquet etc affiliations).

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/lopresti/2009-07-05-roddick-wimbledon_N.htm

July 6th, 2009 at 2:45 am

The most important thing that I wanna say right now is that I’ve been waiting for this moment of Fed winning the 15th slam for such a long time but when it came I was not happy at all. This is the biggest irony. We often think that when we’d get this or that stuff, finally it’d be our happiest day. But yesterday when Fed finally won his 15th, I was not happy, I was sad, truly sad, shocked, apalled, mad, holding my hair tight and pulling it, speechless, feeling restless, could not sit and could not stand, feeling the worst I ever have after watcing any event(sports or other), miserable it was. All this after I saw the sad Andy Roddick. I’ve never shed tears, but yesterday my eyes were welling up, and it weren’t the tears of joy but of agony.Last year when Fed lost to Rafa, I was more angry than sad and that too mainly coz I knew media would desert Fed and join the Rafa band-wagon which I thought would be meaningless and crap and even funny and something to be scoffed at from my perspective. So whatever, the bottomline is last year’s Wim final made me just angry and nothing more, may be just a bit I lamented; but other than that I was quite like come on, it’s ok, it’s nothing, so why worry? But this year’s final is so much more different! It shattered me. And all this coz I saw the defeat of Rod, the fight of Rod, the tears of Rod, the heart of Rod, the courage of Rod, the patience and graciousness of Rod. NOTHING hurt me as much as the defeat of the GREAT MAN whose name is Andy Roddick. I PAY TRIBUTE TO ANDY RODDICK…

July 6th, 2009 at 2:53 am

That’s a sweet post huh. Sorry to hear you were so tortured. I know Federer is your favorite so I’d thought you’d be happy, but I also know how much you like and support Roddick. I think seeing Andy’s heartbreak really did it in for me too. Oh well, maybe he’ll come back and win the USO!? Let’s hope he gets another couple slams and keeps working for it.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:14 am

I’m just catching up on the post-match press. It ranges quite a bit, from discussing the records, and doling out accolades to Federer for his achievements, to discussing the epics proportions of the match: at the Telegraph online, for example, discusses Fed’s wife, their future baby, his tennis plans, the legends’ attendance there, etc. (Fed saying “hi” to Pete during the match). The UK’s Mirror, meanwhile, claims Roddick lost the match more than Fed won it, and is rather harsh on Fed’s jacket, saying “Federer defiled the moment by donning a track suit with the number 15 printed on it for the trophy presentation. That was naff, presumptuous and lacking respect for his opponent.”
So basically the whole gambit in the press. There’s a funny spoof piece at Bleacher Report that imagines Roger’s still winning Wimbledon as an old man after his son has retired from tennis. LOL. Here’s the link to that one: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/212500-wimbledon-2053-highlights-humor

July 6th, 2009 at 3:31 am

Sorry gambit should be “gamut” in previous post – must go to sleep and stop reading tennis stuff…

July 6th, 2009 at 3:34 am

Ha ha, the truth is really out and that is, Roddick is as great as or even a better grasscourter than Rafa. Many self-proclaimed tennis pundits/observers/fans had been ranting and trying to feed up all with the false notion for so long that it’s only Rafa who actually has/had the capacity to push Fed to 5-sets at the Wimbledon, not to mention their dumb, malicious and false claim that Andy Roddick just lacks the talent to truly challenge Fed by pushing him to 5 sets. While glorifying Rafa so much and callously putting down and bashing Roddick, I just couldn’t stop pitying them for their lack of observation. They had craeted a bubble for themselves trying to convince themselves that they actually aren’t wrong there. Thankfully, their bubble burst yesterday, yess!!! They couldn’t notice in Roddick what even a 12 year old has noticed in him in 2003, shame on them! I always knew that Roddick has the talent to push to 5 sets/beat Fed at the Wim but it only needed to be proved once, the truth needed to be proved just once and yesterday it happened. I know some would offer me sour grapes to futher expose their misery or to pretend that they actually have a basis for their conviction. But it’d make me pity their false ego and ignorance even more. At least my conscience has given me a clean chit with regards to my assesment of Roddick and Rafa. I could just go on and on, but I’d like to give such people some time to come to terms with the fact that Roddick’s and has been always at least as good a grass-court player as Rafa. TRUTH IS OUT , TRUTH IS OUT!!!

July 6th, 2009 at 3:53 am

jane Says:
“That’s a sweet post huh. Sorry to hear you were so tortured. I know Federer is your favorite so I’d thought you’d be happy, but I also know how much you like and support Roddick. I think seeing Andy’s heartbreak really did it in for me too. Oh well, maybe he’ll come back and win the USO!? Let’s hope he gets another couple slams and keeps working for it.”

Thanks Mrs. Jane, but believe me, it was unbearable. I definitely didn’t expect this for myself, it just happened.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:55 am

Hmmn ! ! !

An exhibition of Federer’s greatness is like a nuclear blast for some of you who really are strange with your comments in here.

After the blast there are no signs of life – then within a short while the cockroaches appear not far from ground zero.

Ususally I make a vague reference to individuals but I am sorry – I have to target two regular posters in here. The first who ususally has some interesting and inciteful things to say, but today has me quite puzzled.

1) huh – at 2:15am you write “Roddick is just federer’s bitch – plain and simple.” Then at 2:53am you write “NOTHING hurt me as much as the defeat of the GREAT MAN whose name is Andy Roddick. I PAY TRIBUTE TO ANDY RODDICK…”

Well huh – or should you change your name to Sybil – which is it? Is Roddick Federer’s bitch? Or a great man? Hint – answer a great man and you will not be thought a moron. Repeat the bitch line and you might as well also put your address down so I can mail you some towels for your drool.

2) And Fed is afraid – you have been quiet and even respectful this month – even congratulating Roger and his fans on Roland Garros. But you just couldn’t help yourself and hold back the venom – could you?

At 12:51am you wrote –

“put me down all you want, who cares
facts are facts
no rafa so roger wins
if rafa was there, roger loses
and andy was the better player
roger is the luckiest player in tennis history”

You might not realize this, but for 13 of Roger’s Grand Slam victories Rafa WAS there – he just couldn’t win seven matches, as Federer did.

And I am glad you think facts are facts.

Andy was the better player? Let’s look at the Wimbledon Final facts with Roddick’s stats followed by Federer’s -then with an (R) or an (F) in front of each category to denote who won –

(R) 1st Serve % Roddick 168 of 239 = 70 %
Federer 127 of 197 = 64 %

(F) Aces Roddick – 27 Federer – 50

(X) Double Faults 4 for each player

(R) Unforced Errors Roddick 33 Federer 38

(F) Winning % on 1st Serve Roddick – 140 of 168 = 83% Federer – 113 of 127 = 89 %

(F) Winning % on 2nd Serve Roddick – 31 of 71 = 44% Federer – 42 of 70 = 60 %

(F) Winners (Including Service) Roddick – 74
Federer – 107

(F) Winners (Excluding aces) Roddick – 47 Federer – 57

(F) Receiving Points Won Roddick – 42 of 197 = 21%
Federer – 68 of 239 = 28 %

(R) Break Point Conversions: Roddick – 2 Federer – 1

(F) Break point opportunitiews – Roddick – 5 Federer – 7

(F) Tie breaks won Roddick 0 Federer 2

(F) Net Approaches: Roddick 42 of 69 = 61 %
Federer – 38 of 59 = 64 %

(F) Total Points Won Roddick – 213 Federer – 223

(F) Set Points lost on own serve Roddick – 2 Federer – 0

(F) Sets won Roddick 2 Federer 3

Enough facts for you, mister “Andy was the better player”?

=======
Rafa has won one slam on grass, Roger has won 6
Rafa has won one slam on a hard surface, Roger has won 8
Rafa is the best clay player in the world, having won 4 slams on clay while Roger has won one.

I’m sorry to say this, but it is unfortunate that at this moment it appears that while possessing all of the tools, it appears Nadal no longer has the toolbox.

======

And since you have said “Put me down all you want who cares?” I take it you have thick skin, so…..

You may not be a moron, but you post like one.

======

And to everyone out there who has the “If…” scenarios – “If Rafa was playing then blah blah,” “If there were better players in this era then blah blah,” “If Laver had played from 1963 – 1967 then he would have won blah blah,” etc., all I can say is this –

If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

###

July 6th, 2009 at 3:57 am

Rafav was being overrated in comparison to Roddick in terms of grass court credentials. That Rafa’s a better grasscourter than Roddick was only a myth, it got dispelled. The next year Roddick would obviuosly beat Rafa and hopefully Fed for his first Wimbledon title.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:01 am

Rafa was being overrated in comparison to Roddick in terms of grass court credentials. That Rafa’s a better grasscourter than Roddick was only a myth, it got dispelled. The next year Roddick would obviuosly beat Rafa and hopefully Fed for his first Wimbledon title.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:02 am

SHUT THE HELL UP gordo! Why’d you call me a moron? It was not me who called Roddick as the bit** of Fed, I can’t even imagine saying so. Are you so blind to even notice that it was someone called ‘Federer-Nadal’ who said so and I was defending Roddick? If yes, then you better be with your glasses!

July 6th, 2009 at 4:08 am

gordo, if you are really with some credibility and courage, them don’t make vague references to others for grabbing some cheap attention.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:11 am

mem , every imposter poses as a prophet and you are no exception.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:41 am

Who’s this duplicate gordo? I need the original one back here.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:01 am

Gordo > huh

By leaps and bounds.

Huh is an idiot/moron combo for this statement:

huh Says:

Rafa was being overrated in comparison to Roddick in terms of grass court credentials. That Rafa’s a better grasscourter than Roddick was only a myth, it got dispelled. The next year Roddick would obviuosly beat Rafa and hopefully Fed for his first Wimbledon title.

It’s obvious Roddick would beat Rafa for the Wimbledon title? How do you figure? Rafa did what Roddick couldn’t do. Seal the deal and beat Federer.

A healthy Rafa would defeat Roddick on any surface. He has more heart and no quit in him. Rafa’s been in the last 3 Wimbledon finals before this year. Where has Roddick been?

Rafa/Roddick h2h 5-2 for Nadal

Rafa beat Roddick on grass at Queesn in 2008.

Roddick’s in the final because Nadal is not in the tournament.

Not a big Federer or Nadal fan, but facts are facts.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:24 am

Jane:
Thanks for that article. I think. :) I mean, it was wonderful, but it made me tear up all over again :'(

NachoF:
You said: “Whatever, the real world number one is back to his deserved place. Nadal is an awesome player but when you compare him to the GOAT of course his records aren’t as good.”

Of course his records don’t stack up. How many years does Fed have over Rafa? And I’m not saying either that his records ever will equal Fed’s even when he’s been around as long. BUT. Nobody can say Rafa didn’t deserve the top spot, or wasn’t a “true” no. 1. He stayed consistent at No. 2 longer than anyone else in the history of the sport, and worked his cute butt off to give himself the chance to catch and dethrone Fed. And he did. And for the short while that he stayed there, he damn well deserved it. He damn well WAS the “true” no. 1.

Cindy:
It’s hilarious that you preach objectivity after your extremely subjective and arbitrary dragging-through-the-mud of Rafa’s name after the AO. Let’s not even pretend that you were having an objective discussion about drugs in tennis there.

Now, to all those saying Fed was “lucky” to get out of this one:
Maybe he was. But ONLY to the extent that there’s a measure of luck involved in ANY success, in ANY sport – hell, in life itself. If Rod had won – as I was so desperately hoping he would – there’d have been a bit of luck there, too, I don’t doubt.

There’s a reason I waited till the edge of my hurt and heartache had dulled a tad before I posted here. And, btw, as a Rafa fan, I’m twice as disappointed – I hate that he loses the No. 1 spot without having had the chance to defend it (Nacho F: Note that in spite of that fact, I do not say that Fed is not a “true” No. 1). I did not want to come on here and have a knee-jerk reaction and undermine Fed’s achievement. I feel privileged to be a tennis fan in this wonderful era, and Fed is something very, very special. Even his opponents say he deserves all he has.

You can’t say he’s lucky. He still has to do the work to make the luck count. You can’t say, oh, he’s blessed with natural talent. He still has to do the work to make the most of that talent. You can’t say he was not the better player on the day. That’s the exquisite cruelty of this wonderful sport. It’s not how many points you win, it’s which points you win. And the better player is, unfortunately, the one who finds a way to win those crunch points. On the day, it was Fed who did that. As he has so often in the past.

Words cannot begin to explain how gutted I am still feeling about Andy’s coming in second best – I will not say his loss; I saw no loser on the court – but I will not take anything away from Fed coming out on top.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:36 am

FoT, I don’t know what you are trying to prove here? I obviously felt very very bad for Andy. I know Fed won his 15th slam and made history as much as you do. But right now I can’t immediately feel like dancing. Let a day or two pass and I’d obvioulsy feel better and better. But you, I think would not be seen if Fed starts losing again. Were you among those who were pretty sure that Fed’d never beat Rafa again in a slam final? If yes, then I’ve gotta say you don’t come even close to me in terms of having faith in Federer? And those who don’t trust their guys when everything seems doomed, aren’t worthy fans at all. And I’d surely wait to see whether you stay here or actually back off if Rafa beats Fed again in USO(GOD FORBID!!!). And did you give even 1% chance to Fed of winning this year’s French Open beatin Rafa? Honestly tell me. I at least gave a 20-30% chance(I may sound insane, but it’s true) to Fed to beat Rafa at Roland Garros 09 if they’d face off. This again may show I’ve more faith in Fed than you have or would ever have. And I’m sure Fed’ll prefer me than you as a fan in his critical times. He certainly won’t just like to have fans lifting him up and calling him GOAT when he’s up and deserting him otherwise, he’d rather want fans like me who’d rather lift him up and have faith in him at the most difficult times. Good times don’t last always. Even Rafa was bound to lose at RG(thou I thought it’d be next year and not this year). I was pretty sure that after such a rise to the top for him, the fall would also hurt more. I have taken it for granted that Rafa, though would defend his title at RG 09, would face a hell of a challenge from the rest of the guys this time. But it was even worse than I predicted for him. However for the year 2010, I again was sure we’d have a new champion. But may be next year, it may be Rafa instead but who cares? The bottomline is: Fed may also suffer defeat in future as he suffered defeat in his past. And I hope, you then wouldn’t again jump up saying Fed would never beat Rafa again(if you have done such a thing already). Come and support Fed in the bad times which might be in store for him(GOD AFORBID AGAIN THOUGH!) and don’t sing his praises just today coz there are billions willing to do may be the same thing, as everyone likes to show up being a fan/admirer of the successful ones at the summit of their success. It’s the one who stands with someone during his failure that matters. I’ve always, even before coming here, stood up with Fed during his testing times and that’s enough that I could have expected of myself and that’s my greatest satisfaction. And as far as singing the blind praises of Fed is concerned, I leave it to others. And my last words: A FAN IN NEED IS A FAN INDEED.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:48 am

Cindy_Brady: You are the single biggest embarassment to yourself.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:50 am

Congrats to Andy for playing hearts out. Great determination from Federer. So many achievements in one tournament … consecutive semifinals, consecutive grandslam finals, consecutive wimbledon finals, french open/wimbledon combo, select group of people holding hardcourt/grass/clay at the same time, second highest ace count in wimbledon matches, select group of people to regain no. 1 ranking, longest final set in finals, maximum grand slam titles … is there some other achievement not in this list?

July 6th, 2009 at 6:00 am

Cindy_Brady: As you’ve said that Fed’d never win a GS again in his career, it shows who’s the bigger idiot? By the way are you really a woman of 45 years? I mean your posts don’t show that maturity! And you calling me a moron despite being so much more older than me makes it obvious that you, at least, are a moron but in reality, you are much more than that. Stating such a thing with respect to Fed makes you a Fed hater. You also don’t have comprehension skills, otherwise, after reading the post of Von, you’d not have accused her of wishing sickness for Fed. How can you be so idiot? You have completely screwed up your mind! And from the few posts, I’ve gathered up that Cincy_age:45_ZeroKnowledge_NoExperience_Nonsense_Brady has also accused Rafa of using drugs. Come on old woman, get a life!

July 6th, 2009 at 6:06 am

Cindy_Brady, I mean Cincy_age:45_ZeroKnowledge_NoExperience_Nonsense_Brady, first of all, you are not a person to be relied upon for facts, as you have no factual basis of accusing Rafa of using performance-enhancing drugs. Secondly, I know that we have to use our mind for scientific observation to draw any conclusion on any topic and that very conclusion, depending upon its accuracy, might be regarded as fact one day. But as you don’t have any power of observation, you better not gloat over your factual knowledge either coz one who’s no observation, can never master knowledge of facts, as to such a fellow, wrong information would occur to be true, and he/she’d assume it as a fact, paricularly coz he/she is devoid of the scientific observation and analytical power to verify its veracity. You belong to this category. You are more of an astrologer than observer.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:28 am

Von, yes, it is really me and I remember Dubai. I still admire Roddick and would have been happy had he won. I feel sorry for him because I know how disappointed he must have felt to be so close but never quite get there. There was a post-match show in ESPN which briefly showed Roddick going up the stairs then he stopped and crumbled to the floor then held his face down. It was very short but it struck how sad he must have felt. I would not wish on anybody to experience what he must have been feeling at that time.

My recent comments are in response to posts that keep saying Rodddick played better than Federer and that Federer got lucky. Of course, there is an element of luck everytime somebody wins a sports event. But to focus solely on luck and disregard the ability of the winner is not fair. Federer has been very consistent in almost his entire career and to call him lucky in winning yesterday was tantamount to denigrating his skill in tennis.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:35 am

Sorry Von….ur guy lost and I do feel for Andy. But I still feel that this victory was more important for roger’s career than his. Coz it doesnt change much for andy. Andy will have 2 slams instead of 1….whereas for roger its a big difference between 14 and 15.Had Andy won…he will still be considered along with hewitt and safin…nothing more and he doesnt need the money anyway.But still Andy was close and he deserved to win this as much as federer did.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:42 am

Fed the GOAT – well done. We didn’t even realise who we were watching at a Hopman Cup in 2001 playing with Hingis. He seemed so strange, but it was all there.

BTW, the last set was longer than the entire Women’s Final. How is that deserving of equal pay?

July 6th, 2009 at 6:57 am

Fed’s tears at the Aus 09 was not an antic or to take anything away from Rafa, to be honest. He was overcome by emotions that day and that endeared me even more to him. His losses last year have made me appreciate Fed even more than I ever did. He was my first fave from the beginning. But coz of his losses in 08 FO-WIM and 09 AUS, my support for Fed increased more , much more. It also made me realize in a more important way, the true value of Fed’s triumphs. And Fed is a good guy overall, no disputing it.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:07 am

Quick points – Sensational Safin – Making it through the draw at a slam takes peaking at the right time in terms of preparation, skill, and fitness – my guess is that at least one of these guys do not make the final next year. Heck they can be on the same side of the draw.

Gordo – the stats prove something. Also, Roddick did get more first serves in but he had to serve a lot more times meaning Federer was winning more points in the average game as a returner than Roddick. If one thing was a clear edge it was that Roddick was generally frozen as a returner even if he broke one more time he was not generally getting many quality returns in play.

Federer did not have his best day off the ground and I will credit part of that to the depth Roddick generated. He pushed Federer back a bit more than Roger would have liked. Still, Roger did hit a ton of winners off of his forehand to lead to the serve-return-FH winner 3 shot points. In longer rallies Roger did not often conjure up his best stuff (as above Roddick had a lot to do with it), but in shorter rallies he was clicking for most of the match – especially when serving.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:13 am

Hey Von,

I watched the entire match. Andy was the better player on Sunday afternoon at SW19. He won more games and had more service breaks than Federer. And even in losing, he was pure class out there. Andy’s game isn’t my favorite to watch but I don’t think there’s a better sportsman in the game (…or any other sport for that matter) than Roddick.

I suspect he will be seeing that high backhand volley from the 2nd set tiebreak in his nightmares for a while too come. Despite this, he persevered and maintained his level. And for those who think that Fed didn’t bring his ‘A’ game, think again. He couldn’t break Nadal last year and only broke Roddick once. 1 break in like 10 sets. If nothing else, Roddick proved Rafa’s win last year was no fluke.

I thought Fed played very well in winning last year’s USO. He bashed Murray with power. he played aggressively. Once again in this year’s Wimbledon final, he played meekly and passively. To put it bluntly, Fed’s strategy sucked! He was only fortunate that Roddick is not a slightly better returned or he would have been bounced in straight sets. The guy stayed back the whole match and didn’t do a thing. He basically served lights out and waited for Andy to fade. Roddick plays a more physical game. By the end of the 5th set, Roddick’s serve had slowed a bit allowing Roger to get his racket on a few more balls. For all those who think that Federer is light years ahead of Sampras, rethink that too. He is not. He just served and served until the other guy cracked. Sound familiar?

July 6th, 2009 at 8:33 am

Jane’s quote from the UK Mirror: “Federer defiled the moment by donning a track suit with the number 15 printed on it for the trophy presentation. That was naff, presumptuous and lacking respect for his opponent.”

I have read negative comments about that track suit from other posts here. How can that be presumptuous when he really has 15 now? Basketball, baseball, football and hockey players have all those shirts and caps announcing they are the champions ready to wear at the end of the game in case they win and nobody faults them for that.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am

Jane: yes what a collection of fashion sense yesterday. I thought Pete’s suit was a cross between mob chic and government employee drab (I work with feds – its a mystery where they find these suit colors). In contrast to Pete’s tie, how about Borg’s simon lebon/duran duran tie? Did Bud Collins pick that out for him?

Von – I think we’ve both lamented the commentator coverage on NBC. Is it any consolation that carillo was not in the booth with Teddy and Mac? I wish we could get BBC coverage in America. Wouldn’t it be fun to start a topic here devoted to media critiques. Take heart, due to parent company GE’s financial woes NBC may be forced to sell off the remaining rights to ESPN in the forseable future. Of course the commentators could remain the same. ABC was forced to do this Monday Night Football.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:39 am

As a fed fan I can say there were mixed emotions when this one was decided. While I was glad he avenged last years loss and has put a stop to those whispers that he was ‘finished’ it saddened me to see Andy lose as he played the best tennis I have seen from him. When they talk about the GOAT title, the consistency of Fed puts him above all the rest.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am

SG Says:
Hey Von, I watched the entire match. Andy was the better player on Sunday afternoon at SW19. He won more games and had more service breaks than Federer. =========

My dog was watching the lights and movement on the telly yesterday, but maybe the two of you both didn’t understand what you were watching.

Winning 39 games to Fed’s 38 and having 2 service breaks to Fed’s 1 is your back-up? Here are some other stats, which I posted earlier –

(F) Winning % on 1st Serve Roddick – 140 of 168 = 83% Federer – 113 of 127 = 89 %

(F) Winning % on 2nd Serve Roddick – 31 of 71 = 44% Federer – 42 of 70 = 60 %

(F) Winners (Including Service) Roddick – 74
Federer – 107

(F) Winners (Excluding aces) Roddick – 47 Federer – 57

(F) Receiving Points Won Roddick – 42 of 197 = 21%
Federer – 68 of 239 = 28 %

(F) Break point opportunities – Roddick – 5 Federer – 7

(F) Tie breaks won Roddick 0 Federer 2

(F) Net Approaches: Roddick 42 of 69 = 61 %
Federer – 38 of 59 = 64 %

(F) Total Points Won Roddick – 213 Federer – 223

Some also people believe that the world is only 6000 years old.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am

all these stats need more look at them, example Net approaches Roddick 69 and Fed only 59 ;-). so Roddick approched the Net 10 times more than Fed.

Another important point and imo the one that should be considered the most is the breack points. are you sure your stats are correct in this matter? please correct. meanwhile I can tell you Roddick had much more breack points on Fed serve than vise versa.

some people watched the game setting and talking to their dog, what a petty…

July 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am

For all Tennis fans and Roger Federer die-hards,
I want to say only one thing about Federer and other players who lost to him in Semis and finals
of major events including Grand Slams.

That is, Federer is not an unbeatable player afterall if we go by how slender the margin of victories were and what triggered those victories.

You take any of his recent matches, all his opponents would have lost only in the tie-breaks OR failing to play the crucial points well to their advantage. The latest example is Andy Roddick squandering a golder opportunity in the 2nd set when was leading the tier breaker 6-2 and only a point away from taking a 2-0 lead. If that had happnened, who knows Federer would have lost in 3 straight sets. That would be an Andy (Anti) Climax to all the hype and hoopal surrounding what he was supposed to achieve yesterday before the match.

Even Rafael Nadal did the same mistake of not finishing the match from crucial, winning and leading postions to ultimately lose the match UNTIL he found out the way to beat Federer consistently with some clinical performances, thus dethroning him from World’s no. 1 position.

So, there lies a lesson for all who wants to beat Roger Federer. He can be beaten and not a player who is unbeatable, if only they play with some sense of purpose and some seiousness on why they are playing Tennis for and what they should do to defeat Roger Federer.

While it is not the fault of Roger to have won so many matches, mostly with his talent and often with help from his opponents, it is clearly evident that he is not the greatest of them all (let us not only go by the number of grand slams he has won) as greatness also has to be measured against WHO his opponents were and how good they were in coming out of crucial moments in a match.

Cheers…..

July 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am

Gordo,

Agree with ya.. that Fed was ahead of Andy in most of the departments as the stat suggests. It was a high-quality match looking at the ratio of winner-UFEs for both of them. Andy broke fed’s serve twice, and Fed broker Andy’s serve when it mattered in the tie-breaks with some excellent returns and passing shots. Yes, he was quite passive in most of the match with his groundies as SG suggested. But he was quite dominant on his serve games apart from the Aces.

Credit to Andy for not giving up after handing over that 2nd set tie-break to Fed and losing another in 3rd.. he just kept going on and on. At one time i was wondering if the 5th set would ever end.. and i was willing for it to never end so that there wasnt any loser in this match.

But i guess Fed deserved this victory, especially after being at the losing end of 5-set marathon finals at wim and Au.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am

Huh,

You are ridiculous….You dodge valid arguments and questions with flame throwers. This is a tool of someone who has no evidence to back up claims.

Still waiting for your fantastic reasoning why Roddick would beat Nadal at Wimbledon since he has such a stellar record against over him.

Post in terms of real facts. But you can’t. Because there aren’t any. Who’s the real astrology “Granny Clampet Witch DR” on this site. It ain’t me….Yeah you Huh???

BTW….I’ve probably forgotten more than you’ve ever learned. That’s a fact.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am

potro: fed has many break points than Roddick. Roddick had a better conversion rate than Fed. Fed converted finally when it mattered .. on championship point.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am

Hi guys,

I am waiting for some one to gu thru’ my comments on how good a player Federer really is and respond back what they think. That is, to know the fact all that glitters are NOT realy Gold and Federer is no exception when it comes to being a true genius OR the greatest ever, which is nowadays so easily been atributed to by all the media men who wants to fill up their columns and write something that would be interesting for the masses and not for the classes…

Cheers.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am

roger owes his french and wimbledon titles to rafa’s knees. rafa was manhandling roger everytime until he overplayed those knees. with a healthy rafa around roger definitely wouldn’t have won the french and most likely he wouldn’t have won wimbledon.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am

Yes, though Federer knows very well how much he has gained by not having Rafa around – both in the finals of French as well as in the Wimbledon, he will not complain about it as he has an injury free career and his opponents are more of his admirers than has any resolve to actaully play well at those crucial moments and try to beat him.

Long live Roger and his records so long until Nadal is back fully fit and ready to take him and all other sundries head on……

Cheers…

July 6th, 2009 at 10:43 am

Gordo,

Sometimes the stats lies as they do in this case. Fed won a few more of his service games more easily than Roddick. Watching the match, it was more than clear to me who came out with a purpose. Federer bumbled around for the first 4 sets and was very lucky to get away with it. He had no strategy that I could see. Hell, he bumbled around in the fifth too. He played Roddick like he played Nadal. Mind numbing back court reactivity to Roddick. The difference was that Nadal made Fed work to hold his serve over 5 grueling sets. By the 5th set of his match with Nadal, Fed’s mental energies had been sapped and he cracked. As I said before, it’s unfortunate that Andy’s return isn’t a hair better or he may have blown Federer away in 3 sets. You can rattle off all the stats you want. I watched that match. Fed was one missed backhand volley away from being in seriously deep s%#%. I never felt that Roddick was one missed shot away from being dusted. That’s the difference and that’s why the stats don’t unveil the truth.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am

@ fed is afraid. LOL: Roger should kneel to Rafa and hope that he never has to play him again. I think he is trembling at the very thought of seeing Nadal across the net, and if it ever happens again he’ll just run out of the stadium…

Dude stop with the sour grapes, it is pointless. Rafa is great too, I’m sure he’ll win a few more, but right now Fed’s the man, that’s how it goes.

If you want we could start a poll for your new nick. Maybe Sean could put it in the main page. How about it?

July 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am

SG: Roddick was awesome yesterday but the point is to win the match not to be the best off the baseline or coming to net, or… I’m a Fed fan but I would have been very happy seeing Andy win, he fought valiantly, nonetheless there is but 1 trophy which both wanted, and which Fed got. If you asked Roddick to flip positions with Fed (meaning in your opinion that Fed would have played better but Roddick would have won) he’d take it in a heartbeat, so that’s that in end. It’s about the trophy not who plays better and how.

BTW if you said that Federer had no strategy and played mind numbing reactivity to Roddick and still Roddick couldn’t beat him then you’re obviously taking credit away from Roddick since he could not beat a man with no strategy that was according to you not playing great.

So how about we just say that it was a great match, both played extremely well, and in the end Federer just barely edged it out without taking anything away from him or Roddick…

July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 am

What an epic Match! Enthralling and captivating. I found myself screaming at the TV in the second set breaker; sitting on the edge of my seat and glue to every point! Kudos to Roddick for the HUGE fight he put on from that point forward. So many ebbs and flows and how big did each guy serve to erase the other’s chances in the final set! Federer … class all the way. Andy: the best tennis I’ve ever seen him play. If this doesn’t revive American tennis, nothing will! Get out and play tennis!!!

July 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am

look, to summ it up, the way fed won tells me that this is his last GS, thinking about Raffa returning and above everything he said he will concentrate on slams, moms the word ….

July 6th, 2009 at 11:13 am

fed is afraid Says:

roger owes his french and wimbledon titles to rafa’s knees. rafa was manhandling roger everytime until he overplayed those knees. with a healthy rafa around roger definitely wouldn’t have won the french and most likely he wouldn’t have won wimbledon.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/atlarge/sour%20grapes2.jpg

July 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am

i think i’ll keep my name
roger is still afraid of rafa and seeing him
across the net. and now he can fear andy too.
cause andy can play with him and will win
next time.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Roddick unfortunately has withdrawn from the Davis Cup matches. I read something about a hip injury:

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=99570&cat=6

July 6th, 2009 at 11:37 am

I meant unfortunately for the team and us; given that Roddick is injured, and has to be mentally exhausted also, it’s the right decision for him!

Here’s a better summary: I guess Fish, Blake and the Bryans will be playing. I am kind of surprised Sam wouldn’t be playing since the matches will be played on clay.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/tennis/story/1129355.html

July 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am

It was a great final, and either player would have been a worthy victor. I felt Roddick (has been this year and) was (particularly in the final) playing better than in the last 3 years and certainly in his previous Wimbledon finals. Usually the baseline duels go in Federer’s favor, but generally he out serves Roddick when they play – I think it’s mostly because he gets better read on Roddick’s serve than Roddick does on his. I don’t think either the baseline duels or the serving were in anyone’s favor. Federer had more aces, but Roddick was only broken once, so basically they both served very well.

I felt the match turned on two key moments – the first was that backhand volley that Roddick missed in the tie-break. It’s true that Federer has come back from 2 sets down before (he almost did it to Nadal last year, and he didn’t break his serve once) but that was certainly an opportunity lost. Roddick did recover well to win the 4th, in any case.

I also feel that Federer’s serve in the 5th was the key – it seems to me that he was more competitive in Andy’s service games than vice versa, and although he didn’t get too many break chances, Roddick seemed to come back from early deficits in his service games more often then Federer.

A key technical point in the match was the extent to which Roddick was able to dictate points from the back. I feel he had a very good mix of attacking and percentage shots in the rallies – early in their matchups I felt Roddick was too passive. But more recently, he seems to have been making too many UE’s, and Federer has just basically kept the ball in play with a few winners for good measure. However, today, I think Roddick kept himself in the point more often than he has in the past, which I felt Federer responded to by playing more conservative, as the payoff to higher risk attacking tennis wasn’t really paying off.

In the end, I think Federer’s serve was the difference, as it was in his final with Nadal in 2007. I also think he adjusted better to the shadows in the fith than Roddick, because Roddick seemed to struggle with it a little more. What I found also fascinating was how rarely Fed came over the backhand with any agression. I’ve always felt his slice is underutilized, but today, it would have helped him, but perhaps nerves and the shadows made that the safer play.

And to those who are offended by Federer’s attire and comments in the ceremony and the ads I would point out a few things: first, team sports champions always have special t-shirts made out for their victories just in case – I don’t know why anyone should be so offended by this in tennis. And as for Federer’s comments in the ceremony, I think he was very complimentary towards Andy and was only trying to commiserate with him – that he’s won so many titles doesn’t mean losing a close one hurts any less – that’s not the nature of these kinds of people; winning only begets a desire to win more, not mitigate the sting of losing. Ask any champion and they’ll tell you they remember the losses more than the victories.

Finally, there has been a suggestion that Sampras never had self-congratulaory ads running. But when Sampras won his 13th GS at Wimbledon in 2000, immediately afterwards there was a spot featuring Roy Emerson congratulating him on breaking his record and jokingly suggesting that if they had played each other in their primes, rest assured he would have beat Pete’s butt. this is both true and untrue.

And to be perfectly correct, neither Sampras nor Federer ran ads – their sponsors did.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am

Food For Though – Post Tie Break II

A few different thoughts from my viewpoint that either make you wonder what a disappointing career Andy Roddick has really been, what makes Roger such a great champion and who will take the torch from Roger (and Rafa) following yesterday’s match:

(1) Andy Roddick showed tremendous improvement in yesterday’s match and throughout the whole tournament.
(2) The improvement in the power of his groundstrokes, particularly his backhand, has been amazing. He pushed Roger Federer around in the backcourt for the first time in his life. Tennis players, save Andrew Aggasi, don’t usually improve that much once they pass 25 years old.
(3) His showed an incredible amount of mental toughness.
(4)He was physically fit, even though he might have tired a little in the end.
(5)Such improvement from say a couple years ago makes you really wonder what he and his previous coaches, save Brad Gilbert, were up to recent years.
(6) To me this shows that he mentally has not committed himself 100% to the game in recent years. The fact he has changed his diet and sleep routines testifies to that.
(7) In short, Andy’s improved performance must make his think he really wasted the best years of his tennis life (22-25). He has only really begun to reach his potential now at the age of 26 (soon to be 27). Such a pity!

In contrast:
(1) One could argue that since Roger Federer barely won the match, this shows that he has not really improved that much in recent years. He has let the competition catch up to him.
(2) The fact that Roger Federer won the match against someone who played out of the world, shows that, as Andy Roddick said, that he is probably the mentally toughest and physically fittest player on the tour, including Rafa.
(3) Roger Federer’s win shows that a winning attitude separates champions from also rans.
(5) The close match shows that Roger Federer may indeed need to bring in a coach to help him stay ahead or near the top of the pack, which is becoming extremely competitive especially if you include Andy Roddick now.

The match probably shows that guys like Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Juan DelPotro, etc…that winning Grand Slams isn’t necessarily all about talent (these guys are just as talented as Roger and Rafa in the big picture)…but it’s really about hard work and dedication to the game.

I’ll take a wild stab but I think Andy Murray and Juan DelPotro get the message but I don’t think Novak does. I think Andy Murray will likely be the next guy to win 5+ grand slams.I think he’ll reach around 7 or 8.

As for Rafa Nadal, he gets it. The big question is whether he will finish with 10 or 15 grand slams. If his body holds up, he’ll near 15 grand slams when all is said and done otherwise I still think he’ll get 10.

So for all those downtrodden English Tennis Fans, my analysis is offering you guys/gals plenty of hope that Andy Murray will eventually be the man.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am

Dan, I was just messing around. I played with Roddick against Federer in Grand Slam Tennis and pretended it was next year’s Wimbledon :P

If you think about what it means to be a “grass court player”, then Roddick is definitely a better one than Nadal. Yesterday’s final was truly a serving contest with both players finishing the points quickly with their forehands. Nadal was still a baseliner mixing in some volleying with good serving in all the finals he was in.

As for Federer not playing his best yesterday, the guy is still past his prime, whether he’s winning slams or not. He’s never going to be able to sustain perfect tennis over the course of a 5 setter. He’s just not at that ridiculous level anymore but it’s ok because he still clearly has the game to win multiple slams. And his ground game being off yesterday was due to Roddick’s magnificent ground play. Say what you will, but he was incredibly consistent and he was hitting with a lot of power that was troubling Federer, surprisingly. But it’s not even remotely fair to say Federer was playing bad and that let Roddick keep it close. No one’s every pushed Federer to 16-14. That was thanks to Roddick’s play, not Federer’s lack of. Jeez guys, show some freaking respect.

On a side note, has anyone tried Federer’s lure-the-opponent-in-with-a-short-slice-then-pass-him strategy here? When executed correctly, it’s a nearly flawless strategy. And it’s a lot of fun to toy with your opponent like that.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:57 am

I am still confused after reading all these posts. Who won Wimbledon 2009? It must have been the better player because if he were not the better player, he would have lost. Who has 15 won major titles? I guess the guy who has the most is the best ever, include all eras, include all types of players because how can one who has won less be the best ever? Who among current players has won all four majors in his career? I guess the one who has won on all surfaces is the overall best among current players. I just want plain answers, no ifs ands or buts about it because ifs never happened. If a player can win 15 major titles, I would not attribute that to simple luck. Now, if a player has won only one major in his career, to attribute that to luck would somehow be more appropriate.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

I have my article more or less finished and left out a dig at Jimmy Connors’ coaching. Jimbo did help Andy to believe in himself more, but Jimmy also had Andy running forward just for the sake of running forward. Stefanki has Andy doing more nuanced aggression. I remember in 2004 people marveling at Gilbert getting Roddick on a fitness program designed by an NBA trainer and Andy playing better. Stefanki seems to have Roddick at a similar level of lean muscle to that 2004 period. Jimmy Connors probably hurt Roddick’s confidence at net by having him come in behind anything rather than at the right times. I also think his two hander vs. Murray and Federer looked a but more like a line drive shot than the pseudo push his backhand had become over the years.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

by the way, to those who feels that Andy was unlucky, here are more heartbreaking news. I remember there were 2 close shots by Andy that was called OUT that he did not challenge that was later shown in the Hawkeye replay to be IN shots. Now what would have happened had Andy challenge!!

July 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

So Dan Martin,

Are you saying, Jimmy Connors is a shitty coach?

July 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

MMT great post at 11:42. Nice to see a balanced view amidst all the extreme useless posts. There’s so much text in this thread wasted on the word IF. Rafa isn’t here, not Feds problem, Murray wasn’t in the final – not Feds problem, Roddick played a fantastic match but couldn’t win the points he needed – not Feds problem. It’s not luck for Fed that Roddick missed his shots – LOL. Such stupid sour grapes it’s laughable. People can’t just get passed the fact that Fed has 15 slams, is a true class act who cares about tennis more than anyone, has proven he can last and last and last even though he is supposedly past his prime and on the way out. And I really don’t think Fed cares one bit that his haters come up with lame excuse why he won. The only grapes he is eating right now are sweet ones.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Hi everyone, a first timer here but a tennis fan for over 2 decades now:
One day after that incredible final between two tennis warriors who played their hearts out, I had the time to go through this highly entertaining thread and as usual the entire range of opinions have been vented, questioned and ferociously attacked or heartfelt agreed on.
What a great final! As a federer fan, I’m glad he won his 15th. But I take my hat off in salute to Andy Roddick. I have always respected his mentality, his on-court and off-court demeanor and last but not least his incredibly funny and quick sense of humour. His pressers are legend. I know words count for nothing after losing so closely, but he truly deserves lots of kudos for his efforts. A big shout-out to all the Roddick fans: your man is a true credit to the world of tennis and the world of sports! Although happy for my man of course, I felt sad for Andy. I hope he’ll win a second grand slam soon. He truly deserves it! I do think Fed chose his words poorly at the ceremony, BUT HE MEANT WELL!!! He had trouble addressing what he wanted to say in English. Just came across wrong. He’s human after all and not speaking in his native tongue(English isn’t mine and meaning can get lost easily in translation). He paid great tribute to Andy in all the subsequent interviews as did Andy to Fed. I also hope Andy will keep his form and determination to always better himself cause it’s great to see him in the mix among the top contenders. If my man won’t win the UO this year(god forbid), I’ll be cheering for Andy to get his second! Hope he recovers from his hip problems that will sideline him for the upcoming Davis Cup rubber against Croatia. Hope to c y’all at Flushing Meadows!!!!
GO FED FOR 16!!!!

July 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

huh, save it! we already know that you are a butt kisser to federer, just like most of the players he plays! what do you want to do, BEHEAD anyone who says that federer is not the perfect player you want him to be! get a grip!

July 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

is he a coach to begin with? who he has coached before Andy and what were the results?

July 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

Connors did two good things imo: 1) he initially pulled Roddick out of a deep slump and boosted his confidence, so Andy won Cincy 2006 and got to the 2006 USO final, and had Fed on the edge at the YEC. Later on, though, I think Connors had almost the reverse effect as he began to overshadow Roddick somewhat. And 2) Connors did help with Roddick’s backhand. To me, the improvements to Roddick’s backhand *began* with Connors, and have continued to evolve since, with Stefanki.

Roddick’s movement was not bad at Wimbledon 2007 either, so maybe Connors had him working on that. Even though Roddick lost in the quarters to Gasquet, he was playing really well up to that point, and getting up to and down to balls that he couldn’t in 2006. So I don’t know if that’s credit to Connors or perhaps Roddick’s fitness coach?

But Connors did not, as Dan points out, give Andy the best approach skills, and yet urged him to go forward. That’s like saying, go out in the line of fire without a weapon. That can’t be good for confidence, which generally eroded during his time with Connors. There was a palpable “lift” when they split, and Roddick won Dubai. Plus Connors never committed himself to the travel, which meant he was an absentee coach some of the time – not great.

Stefanki has helped Roddick’s calmness and focus; he seems less fidgety and more “down to it” on the court; less likely to be overtly troubled by anything. His approach shots are much improved, and clearly the weight loss has had a great overall effect, perhaps most noticeable in his movement. His slice is now a weapon too. And his volleying is shored up by the good approaches. So Stefanki seems to have helped with tactics, demeanour and fitness, while also adding variety so Andy has more tools on the court. Plus, there’s no doubt Andy is now going for it on his forehand, always a weapon. And Fed had less of a read on Roddick’s serve, which suggests to me that Stefanki has been urging him to vary placement and type of serve. This is also a great move – rather than relying solely on speed on the serve, which is nuclear anyhow, add some variety and strategy to this already-dangerous weapon of Andy’s. It’s like a total “fleshing out” then of both the pros and the cons of Roddick’s tennis. What a great coach.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

what r Fed chances of wining USO? I bet we will see a new champion this year. I will save this post to remind you when this happens. hopefully they will keep it online so you can come check it

July 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

mem: i’m not defending huh for any comments but r u suggesting that a fan or a player or sports team is merely a butt kisser? Isn’t that what a fan is for? LOL. Fed is not the perfect player, but he is the most successful.

And why is it so hard to believe that the other players look up to Fed and admire him and his achievements? Your comment seems out of reality.

July 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

I’m reserving my opinion on Fed winning the US Open until we have seen his performance at the two hard court masters serers events in Cincinnati and Montreal.

Federer hasn’t exactly lit the world on fire this year on hard courts.

Maybe playing with less pressure will help. Maybe he will be too relaxed to give a damn. Who knows?

After all, Federer doesn’t really have to win another tournament to be considered GOAT at this point. Anything more is gravy.

Time will tell.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

Jane, I agree…building Roddick 2.0 started under Connors. I was impressed by the way his on court body language changed. At that time he needed someone who knew what it takes to be in contention and win Major Tournaments to create a building block from where he could develop his new playing style. Absolutely agree on the approach-the-net game, will and belief are important, but without control it turns out to be a kamikaze tactic which ate away at the earlier established confidence Andy worked hard at to get. What I liked is that when the moment came that he had that foundation built he realised Jimmy, great as he was and is, couldn’t help him attain the next level or take the next step needed to close the gap to the top players. That’s why I was impressed that Andy recognized this and decided to part ways with Connors.
As for Stefanki, kudos to him. Imo he is the first coach to look at the whole of Andy(mental strength, mental weakness, his physiology, his power, his shot-possibilities and his short comings), break all these parts down individually and following a very determined plan to build them all up again going from the basics what makes a great tennis player. Especially in his case where one of his basic strengths is “heart”!!!
He helped or maybe better guided Andy to develop a “tennis-brain” if you may, so he knows what he’s doing, controlling what he’s doing, executing a pre-set plan. I like his improvement a lot! Took guts and patience and a lot of hard work to get where his tennis is now. I hope for him he will further improve and reap the rewards. Cheers!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Polo Says:
I am still confused after reading all these posts. Who won Wimbledon 2009? It must have been the better player because if he were not the better player, he would have lost. Who has 15 won major titles?

*******

Who has more majors, Fed or Rafa? Despite this, who consistently beats the other guy? Not the guy with 15 majors. The guy with 6 majors usually wears out the guy with 15. You can’t say one guy is better than another a guy on a given day because of his major count.

Yesterday, the guy who lost played better than the guy who won. It happens, not often, but it does happen. Stich-Edberg in 1991. Edberg played better, Sitch won. 2007 USO, Djokovic-Fed, Djokovic generally played better but lost.

As Fed said himself, in situations like this someone has to win and someone has to lose. This is a match Roddick should have won. Fed escaped playing very defensive and reactive tennis. I hope Roddick can get his hands on a Wimbledon trophy at some point. He’ll definitely be a sentimental favortite from here on.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

How can someone with over 100 winners be playing defensive?

July 6th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

I’ll say this (…and I’m sure this will get a rise from Fed fans), give Sampras Luxilon in his prime and with his naturally athletic all court game,(…which was better than Roddick’s) and his vicious serve, he shows Federer who’s the real boss at the All England Club. Federer has barely between two baseliners who’s games are not the most most suited to grass. I’d like to see what he does against a guy with masssive firepower, brilliant movement, brilliant volley skills and the enormous will to win.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

SG, imo every person, expert/writer/layman etc interprets stats , numbers and figures purely subjectively using their own brain as reference and anyone who tells you they’re looking at it objectively is talking nonsense.
There are always multiple ways to interpret numbers.
One example is one uttered many a time before concerning Fed-Rafa…discounting 9-2(h2h on clay) and 3-0(GS finals on clay)it looks very different: Rafa is probably going to be among the best ever(after his career) players on clay and they played 11 out of 20 on clay. Fed being the number 2 on clay for 4-5 yrs made finals against Rafa, where as Rafa still has to make up for a lot of missed finals against Fed on HC, simply because he didn’t make the finals.

Other way around: claiming that is flawed obviously of course, because in the end all that counts are the numbers on when they actually played and not when or how many times they should have played.
Peace

July 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

Thy effectively played 7 sets. 50 of Fed’s 100 winnners were aces. That means he hit 50 non-service winners over 7 sets. Not exactly burning the house down. That’s a passive performance. He stayed back and reacted all match.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

SG,

Fed beat him before….Remember!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Hey SG, go to youtube and watch Wimby 4th round 5 set classic between the great Pete and the great Roger. That answers your question….everything else is hypothetical :-)

July 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Hi everyone,
Congrats to Fed and his fans here for the 15th Gs title and number one. seems once again things have started to go Fed’s way.

My heart goes out to Roddick. He should have won that match. It should hurt like hell to be broken once and lose a match like that. Federer should thank his lucky stars forever.

I read a bit about Roddick’s press conference and can’t imagine what he has been going through. Credit to him, that he did not cry and make a scene and let Federer have his moment of happiness.

There is nothing to say but praise for Andy Roddick. he is BACK and he is there to win. If not wimbledon, perhaps the US Open. Go Andy!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

SG, I advise you watch the stats of the match, posted numerously in this thread. You think Fed or Andy look at the stats in hindsight? Fed won, Andy lost, everything else is trivial. Tennis is cruel in that someone has to win and someone has to lose, but isn’t that what makes a sport like tennis so appealing and attractive?

July 6th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

And it’s 50 winners over 7 long sets. There weren’t any 6-2 or 6-1 sets.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Cindy_Brady
**
Kisses to Von and Zola.
***

Kisses to you too! :)

July 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

YCindy_Brady Says:
SG,

Fed beat him before….Remember

**********************

I said prime Sampras. Not the Sampras he played in 2001. This Sampras wasn’t as quick or agile as the one of 3 years earlier in 1998. I have seen the Fed match a few times with Sampras. There are quite a few times when Sampras misses passing shots I think he makes earlier in his career. His backhand was better in the 90’s than it was at the end of his career. Sampras knows it. Fed knows it. Anyone who’s watched a lot of tennis over the last 15 years knows it.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Federer had a lot more winners than Roddick. How is that playing too defensive? I still don’t understand. And I like how you’re immediately claiming that Federer would never beat Sampras on grass. If a prime Sampras played today’s Federer, then you’re probably right. Only problem is Federer’s past his prime. Prime vs Prime becomes a real toss up with a slight edge to Sampras. Jeez.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Hi guys
Congrats to Fed. My take: Andy was winning the fifth set, until somewhere around 11-11. You could see a change in Fed’s whole attitude from nerves to resolve. He started serving 3 serves a game, and forcing Andy to hit perfect serves to win points- which Andy did a lot of. But Fed just had that look that he’d decided he was going to win. And he pushed on until he did.
I am so impressed with Fed’s mental strength, and I believe this unbelievable test will only give him more confidence and mental armour. I hope he can use it when he needs it most, which is frankly against Nadal. The Aussie Open fifth set really was a choke job. His recent losses to Nole likewise. I think Fed showed a new attitude begining in Madrid (also, where his long-missing first serve returned), so I already had confidence from then, and I think this makes him a stronger player.
I am very much looking forward to Rafa’s return to see that rivalry renewed, and also to see what’s to come from Roddick, Murray, Nole, and JMDP.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

Make that, three ACES a game, in the 2nd line.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Lol SG, you are persistent….again…You make a point(although hypothetically) in that Sampras wasn’t probably as good as 1998 but missing the other side once again…Fed was only 19(a long way from his prime)at that time. Would have, could have, should have…. Sampras was amazing especially on the grass and I’m not saying Federer is better than Pete was(no way I dare compare the 2)but to assume Pete would easily handle Roger if both in primes? Not only senseless, but farfetched imo. But of course if you say: I think Sampras would easily beat Fed in prime….that’s your pregogative sir/ma’am

July 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

Scottish, I’ll be sure to let you know when I have this overwhelming desire to address you! until then, you can make your comments and i’ll make mine! thanks!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Oh and SG, I’ve played and watched tennis for over 25 years and thoroughly enjoyed all the years and I would never presume to know what would have happened between….that’s all blablabla imo

July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

fed is afraid: what do you think Fed is afraid of exactly? He already has 15, so even if Rafa beats him from now till kingdom come (which I don’t think will happen, in fact I think rom this point onward Reoger will imrove his H2H against Rafa), I don’t think Federer would be afraid one bit.

Rafa is a great champion, but Fed is a greater champion.

And tbh, part of the reason so many of us thought and still think that Roddick was the better player in the match before looking at the stats was that Roddick really gave Fed a run for his money. He simply played his best match ever against Federer, even better than he played in his two wins against him. I bet most of us were pleasantly surprised when Rod made a match of it, but it WAS a surprise.

SG: You point out that not always the players who’s better ends up winning the major. Fair enough, but shouldn’t you give Roger credit for still managing to win even though he wasn’t playing as good as his opponent?

Because Roger has made winning majors look so easy people are starting to think that it’s easy, or that he’s “lucky”, or that he has faced sub-par opposition. Let me tell you this, Rafa was already a GS champion when Fed won his 2005 Wimbledon 2005 USO, 2006 AO, 2006 Wimbledon, 2006 USO, 2007 AO, 2007 Wimbledon, 2007 USO, 2008 USO, 2009 RG.

That’s 10 slams if you’re counting. Just because Rafa didn’t manage to win 6 matches to reach the finals of some of those slams doesn’t make Roger’s wins any less significant. Shouldn’t we give credit to Roger for at least being there for Rafa to beat in every single slam that Rafa has won? (1 semi in 2005 RG and 5 finals)

Face it folks, at least Roger is always there to play Rafa in slams, Rafa is not always there to play Roger. Have any of you guys thought of that?

_______________________________________________________
I really hope you people maintain a level of civility in your discussions. Demeaning either Roger or Rafa is insulting to both. Even Rafa thinks Roger is the GOAT, and coming from the guy who’s beaten Fed more than any other man on the planet, that should give you people a hint.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I hope all Rafa fans are as gracious as zola.

Thank you zola.

fed is afraid should stick to watching pro wrestling coz he clearly knows nothing about tennis.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

SG,

You mean the same old Sampras that was good enough to win the US open in 2002?

Not buying your argument at all. Federer was green and 19. Very little experience. All that massive experience of Sampras’s should have pulled him through that match but it didn’t. Federer Out toughed and “mental-ed” Sampras. Just like he did to Roddick, Agassi, and all the others who have tried to challenge him. He just has a gift that few other humans have ever possessed including Sampras who allowed both Hewitt and Safin to upset him back to back years at the US Open.

Only Nadal has stood tall and strong enough to with stand the Fed express.

You too believe in Leprechauns!

July 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

The ATP made a little tribute for Roger, go to their website now.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Splash/Splash-Page.aspx

BTW, for those of you who can’t grasp what Roger has done, you have to realize that Roger only won 4 slams before Rafa became a slam winner himself. Roger has always been involved in Rafa’s 6 slams victories (1 semi and 5 finals). The same can’t be said of Rafa.

Rafa is a great champion, but Fed is a greater champion.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Cindy,

Connors a shitty coach hmmm I don’t think he was shitty, but very stubborn. Jimmy wanted Andy to move forward a lot. Well, it was sometimes a really bad idea. Jimmy Connors has always been a bit of a loner so seeing him as a coach is an odd idea in some ways. Still, in 2006 Roddick got a lift after hiring Jimmy.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Cindy_Brady Says:
SG,

You mean the same old Sampras that was good enough to win the US open in 2002?

***************

Sampras was as green in 90′ when he won the USO as Federer was at 19. It is you who believes in little green men. Anyone who wants to imply that 2001 or 2002 Sampras was better than 1993, 94, 95, 96,97, 98 or 99 Sampras is truly delusional. The fact that Sampras at 31, won the 2002 USO, well past his prime, is a tribute to his greatness and tribute to how good he was when he was really at his best. Please get off the Fed sauce. Trust me, it’ll make you sick.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

To say Federer won by luck is ridiculous!
If you guys remember right he missed and easy forehand on 5-5 first set to break Roddick, who challenged, and the ball was out by a hair.
Fed should have won the first set and Roddick should have won the second. The rest of the match they were equal and Fed had the advantage of serving first on the fifth putting an enourmous pressure on Roddick, who kept it cool as much as someone can on a tennis match.

But, to me, the most astonishing stat is that Andy Roddick hold serve for 37 straigh games (6 on first set, 6 on second, 6 on third, 5 on fourth and 14 on fifth), UNBELIAVEBLE!!!!!
This wil never be done again!

I can’t wait for next year Wimbledon to see if the trend of 5 set thrilers will continue.

July 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Polo Said: “Rod Laver would not call Federer the best ever and keeps stating the Roger is “the best in his era” because he is one of those people in denial. He still wants to keep the illusion that he is the best ever and is not willing to concede that perception. Sampras is more honest and secure in his skin that is why he is willing to admit the truth that Federer is the best.”

I don’t think Laver has any illusions – I think being the gentleman that he is, he doesn’t want to call out anyone as the greatest, particularly himself, but also to avoid offending so many claimants. He may also believe genuinely that it’s impossible to say, but I disagree with that contention.

sensationalsafin Said: “How can someone with over 100 winners be playing defensive?”

That includes 50 aces, so it’s really 57 winners in what amounts to 7 sets of tennis or 8 per set. That’s good tennis, but not super aggressive – a year ago at the AO Roddick lost to Kohlshreiber who had 70+ winners from the run of play, so I don’t think he was at his best, like he was against Agassi in 2005. That has a lot to do with how Roddick played – in fact, I would put it down to how Roddick played.

SG Said: “Who has more majors, Fed or Rafa? Despite this, who consistently beats the other guy? Not the guy with 15 majors. The guy with 6 majors usually wears out the guy with 15. You can’t say one guy is better than another a guy on a given day because of his major count.”

I think the point Polo was making is that on a given day, you determine who is the better player on a given day based on who won the match. Over course of a career, you would point to their overall results. This side argument is quite unfair to Federer because Sampras had losing records to Krajicek (whom he played 10 times) and Stich (whom he played 7 times) but nobody would claim they were the better player because their overall results don’t compare to Sampras – but somehow this argument applies to Federer when it comes to Nadal, even though Federer’s over all results are better. If you want to hold out judgment until their careers are over, I would buy that argument, but at this point, I don’t see how anyone can claim Sampras was the best of his era, despite those significant blemishes, but Federer was not because of his. In fact, if you compare Nadal to Krajicek and Stich, which one would you prefer to have a losing record against?

SG Said: “Thy effectively played 7 sets. 50 of Fed’s 100 winnners were aces. That means he hit 50 non-service winners over 7 sets. Not exactly burning the house down. That’s a passive performance. He stayed back and reacted all match.”

Agreed, that he didn’t exactly light it up, but even if he did, as you put it, “stayed back and reacted all match”, who cares. There are a lot of players who have used this approach to beat him in the past, but if he employs this strategy to win it somehow qualifies his victory?

There are no points for style in tennis.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

SG, to say Federer in 09 is better than Federer in 04, 05, and 06 is truly delusional.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

I’d like to say one thing in Roddick’s defense, which many would think is a lame excuse, but yesterday, he fell and hit himself rather hard. After that fall, it was clear he was hurt when he walked off, and it impaired his movement. Additionally, his serve began faltering. Now I know this will be perceived as lame by many of you, but that’s the truth as I saw it.

Andy’s withdrawal today from Davis cup with a hurt hip, is the result of that fall and manifests that injury as a real one. However, he hung on and put up a good fight to the end. Sometimes my faith wavers as to justice in this world, but it’s all I’ve got to keep on believing that at times we don’t always receive the desires of our hearts for a reason, but someday we ultimately will understand why this is so. In roddick’s case i don’t understand, but there is a greater power who does. Maybe, just maybe, Federer realized he was playing an injured Roddick?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Gosh, so much stuff to wade through that I finally scrolled down and must have missed some good posts while so doing.

Cindy_Brady Says:
jane Says:

“Cindy-Brady talking about showing some class = definition of irony. LMAO!!!

“I’m out of here until the master series events begin.

“Yah, I’ll be back. My work is done for now.”

“Kisses to Von and Zola.”

Posted July 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
___________________

Cindy Brady: “Yah, I’ll be back. My work is done for now.”

What work? Making a spectacle of herself lieing at every turn and can’t back up her moronic garbage with one true thought? Picking on the Roddick fans, me in particular, and unleashing all the venom and hate she’saccumulated from an insufferable life for 65 years?

Oh yes, I remember her work, it was debasing every thing good re: Nadal, Murray and Roddick has done. She made it her business to persecute the Roddick fans after his win over Murray, ensuring they did not enjoy one second of his win, by crusading as a de facto Federer fan, when in truth, she has bashed Federer umpteen times; stated he’d never win another GS, and more potently she HATES him.

Now, age is irrelevant to posting, but relevance is pertinent in this case, in the fact that this is a 65 year-old teeny-bopper, whose main focus is to start a war, a war with anyone she’s dug her claws into and she enjoys it immensely, because she can operate behind a screen name in anonymity, and she revels in that thought, expounding on it ad infinitum.

What does this reveal of the Cindy Brady character? That:(1) she’s an over-grown teenager, a woman(?) sadly, who’s most probably a grandmother of 65 years old, who’s never progreesed through the stages of life, and has not achieved adulthood; (2) at 65 years of age, she has not successfully embraced her rites of passage, or else she’d be in her generativity stage of life whereby, through an abundance of self-love she’s overcome with the desire to give back to the world, some of the good which she has amassed through life experience and wisdom. Sadly, this is not so in her case. Instead she spews venom and hate desbasing everyone in her pathing and mowing down the achievements of those players she terms to be inadequate; and (3) she spews cockalorum by boasting of her tennis knowledge, (even venturing to tell another poster that he’s ‘jealous’ of that knowledge) by grappling onto a few names and stats of the past greats, and embellishing upon the information culled/gleaned from data banks that anyone has access to, but don’t really care to be bothered with?

However, for Cindy Brady, quoting of stats is necessary to impress those who are bowled over with this kind of thinking, or else, how would she be able to talk sense when nonsense is all that’s left in the mush of someone brain who’s taking a stroll down Alzheimer’s lane?

Cindy Brady just go to hell. Please, you’ve made a spectacle of yourself, caused huge disrespect to the females posting here, by picking fights with young kids who could be your grandchildren , e.g., huh, and several other young men who post here. Some of us could be your children. Is this how you’d behave toward your offspring? If so, then this is indeed a sad world with people like you in it, passing on their doctrine of hate, and misguided impressions.

I don’t know about many of you, but this I do know, I really don’t care to share my tennis and academic knowledge with someone whose main focus is to debase the present tennis athletes’ achievements, and one who causes unrest to the other posters, desbasing them by name calling and denigrating their posts, e.g., dumb, moronic, stupied et al., in order to obtain much needed self-esteem. Sheesh to you Cindy Brady and I’m sick of you.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Uhm, the calculation that of Federer’s 107 winners, only 57 of them are actual winners and 50 of them are aces is incorrect. A service winner isn’t an ace (why count the same stat twice?), it’s a serve that is touched but isn’t returned. That’s why Roddick didn’t have a lot of aces, because Fed got his racket on the ball a lot. But Roddick had plenty of unreturnables aka service winners. I don’t know how many pure winners vs service winners Federer had, it might be 57 to 50, but that’s not because he hit 50 aces.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Loooool, they only count aces and “clear winners” read: the racket didn’t touch the ball! A service winner isn’t included in the stat of winners.
A service winner would be counted in the category “forced winners”

July 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

I know anything I say will be perceived by Fed fans to be sour grapes, but for a player to have a pre-tailored monogrammed jacket depicting ’15’, before he wins the ’15th’ trophy is really telling his opponent, “I know you are a shitty player, and I’ll win this one.” Is there no class? sheesh. I didn’t watch the presentation ceremony, but from the comments here Federer was flat, maybe he was suffering from some pange of remorse for his off the wall braggadocio?

Some of you, because you idolize him, seem to blame this on the clothing manufacturer, but Federer has got to be the one to sanction his clothes, so please don’t push this stuff down our throats and blame on the clothing sponsors. Federer likes to boast and brag and he’s now walking on water. That kind of thought process will ultimately be anyone’s downfall.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Von, I disagree that Roddick was really injured. I think when playing a match like that, there was enough adrenaline that would numb any pain. I didn’t see any significant drop in his game except for the first few points after the fall. His serve did not go down. The only time in the entire match that Roddick’s serve falter was the final 2 points when he hit second serves that allowed Federer into the point. The whole match, 5th set included, whenever Roddick was down in his service game, whether it was 15-30 or break points, he’d hit a first serve that Federer could never return.

Von, I think with all the things people are saying about luck and Federer playing bad and this and that, you might as well think Federer won the 5th set 6-2. He didn’t, he won 16-14. And Federer didn’t play that bad, if at all. He was pushing a lot and playing tentatively, but I think it was because he couldn’t handle Roddick’s pace a lot and didn’t wanna over hit anything (although he still did when he shouldn’t have). Federer didn’t play the all dominant tennis we’re used to because Roddick didn’t let him. Roddick’s style didn’t play into Federer’s hands where every shot Roddick hits feeds Federer. This time, Federer wasn’t being fed anything except for raw power that he couldn’t handle. Both players played great tennis. Both deserved to win. It’s a shame they couldn’t give Roddick a trophy, because he really deserved it. Von, just don’t let these people get to you. No matter what they say, they can’t discredit Roddick’s play. He played amazing and I hope he can keep it up. I think if the 2 play in one of the Masters events, Roddick will get his revenge. Best of 3 would allow him to take it to Federer before Federer can really react.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

From Bob larson’s breaking news:
Monday, July 6, 2009

Fish to Replace Roddick in Davis Cup This Week
——————————————————————————–
The USTA announced that Mardy Fish will replace Andy Roddick on the U.S. Davis Cup team that will face Croatia this weekend in the 2009 Davis Cup quarterfinal tie on an indoor clay court in Porec, Croatia.

“Mardy is a Davis Cup veteran and we appreciate his willingness to join the team on short notice. He has been playing well and we are glad to have him back in the singles lineup,” said McEnroe. “Andy had a great run at Wimbledon. He battled for more than four hours yesterday and fought hard to reach the final. Understandably, his body is not up for the rigors of Davis Cup in such a short turnaround.

“Roddick suffered an injured right hip flexor during his five-set loss in the Wimbledon singles final yesterday.”
__________________
Now, you can all debate this little pearl and wonder what would have happened had roddick not had that fall. Probably, it’s why Fed couldn’t celebrate and he was so inanimate?

Get more on this story and other tennis news at http://www.tennisnews.com

July 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Von said:

“I know anything I say will be perceived by Fed fans to be sour grapes, but for a player to have a pre-tailored monogrammed jacket depicting ‘15′, before he wins the ‘15th’ trophy is really telling his opponent, “I know you are a shitty player, and I’ll win this one.” Is there no class? sheesh. I didn’t watch the presentation ceremony, but from the comments here Federer was flat, maybe he was suffering from some pange of remorse for his off the wall braggadocio?”

Well Von if you watch any sport other than tennis you’d know that this isn’t unusual, Roger just introduced it to tennis. Italy has “Campione del Mundo” T-shirts when they won the world cup in 2006. Barcelona has also winners T-shirts when they won the UEFA champions league this year.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

I think we are all too close to the 15 major titles and career Grand Slam to really measure them. Roger to my mind is not playing as well as he did from 2004-06 (maybe the Australian Open of 07 was his last event in that period of dominance), but Roger keeps winning big events. Here are his GS records 2003 13-3, 2004 23-1, 2005 24-2, 2006 27-1, 2007 26-1* (Haas walkover does not count as a win at Wimbledon 07), 2008 24-3, 2009 20-1 with the U.S. Open to be played. That adds up to 157-12 record and nearly 93% winning percentage at the biggest events since January 2003.

To win at least 20 Grand Slam matches per year for 6 straight years is insane. Roger has not played at his highest level since January 2007 and he is still 27-1 in Grand Slam matches over the past 52 weeks. His current 19 match winning streak includes 2 wins over Roddick, 2 over Del Potro, 2 over Soderling, 2 over Haas, 1 over Nadal, 1 over Monfils in Paris on clay, and 1 over Karlovic on grass (Monfils on clay and Karlovic on grass are two real tests that they might not be on less preferred surfaces). I agree Roger is not as sharp as he was and yet he is still winning often and in big venues.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

SS: You can disagree and be in denial, but all I’ve got to say Roddick is NOT a quitter and he hung on for as long as he could. Look, I have watched this kid grow up, and by now I can write you a script of what he will or will not do. RODDICK WOULD HAVE NEVER RETIRED during that match or let on how he was really feeling. And, you can take that to the bank, because even now Andy’s not saying he hurt himself to take away from ‘The Federer’s’ glory. I’ll say one thing, if it were te other way around we’d hear of it ad infinitum. You guys need some reality checks.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Kimo: Federer is making a masquerade of tennis with his pop star outfits.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Von, I can understand why you might think it’s a slam against another player to have the 15 ready. But I have to say that it’s not at all about the other player. It’s about being ready for the moment. For example, in the NHL on a game 7 BOTH teams have hats, shirts etc. already made up for whoever wins. The same is true of football, soccer etc. and all major sports. It’s not about saying I’m going to beat you and you have no chance, it’s about celebrating a victory with the accomplishment in hand.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Von Said:

“Now, you can all debate this little pearl and wonder what would have happened had roddick not had that fall. Probably, it’s why Fed couldn’t celebrate and he was so inanimate?”

Would you be able to play again in a few days time after suffering such a hard loss?

Roddick needs time.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Hmm…sensational safin, you’re onto something here – they did in fact used to cite service winners as a statistic years ago, but recently I haven’t seen that statistic separately, and just assumed when winners were qualified as including service winners, that encompassed aces. Intersting…

July 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm

who in their right mind would put any stock into what pete sampras says regarding federer. that’s his friend, he’s expected to say that. pete has always ignored or tried to diminish what rafa has done, so i don’t expect anything less from him. when john mcenroe asked him after the final on Sunday, on the spot, live on tv, in front of the television viewing audience, if he thought federer was the greatest of all time, how did sampras respond? he has trouble responding as if he wasn’t sure or didn’t know exactly what to say. at the same, when he’s not in front of the camera, at home or on the phone, he can repeat without doubt that federer is the “greatest of all time.” but he can’t say it when everybody is looking at him. how phony is that?

rod laver isn’t much better, but i do agree with him that no player can be called the greatest of all time, just the greatest in his era. it’s only logical!

July 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Von Said:

“Kimo: Federer is making a masquerade of tennis with his pop star outfits.”

It’s all relative. Some people accused Nadal of making a mockery of tennis by wearing sleeveless shirts and pirate pants.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

I want to make a throw out a thought about the Nadal – Fed rivalry that somehow gets overlooked. And don’t forget these are my 2 fav players and I have enjoyed the rivalry. But it seems to me that the H2H results are very skewed. Look at this breakdown.

Results on each court surface

* Clay courts: Nadal 9–2
* Hard courts: 3–3
* Grass courts: Federer 2–1

Based on the response from players etc. they claim Fed is the king of grass, Nadal is the king of clay and a few others fall in the mix for hard court. What bothers me is that the schedule is so lopsided in favour of Nadal on clay. They both play about 6 or 7 clay tournaments a year and only 2 on grass. Multiply that by several years and the opportunity for Fed to make the gap narrower is significantly smaller. If Fed had played Nadal the same number of times on grass as he has on clay it’s very likely the H2H would be a lot closer if not in Fed’s favour.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Von, I’m not in denial. If Roddick was in serious pain, he might have had no choice but to retire or wilt away at least. But he didn’t. He went on to play almost 3 full sets more and played extremely well. I agree with what Tennis Vagabond said. The fifth set began and Federer had early break points that Roddick quickly served away. After that, Roddick dominated his own serve, and made Federer work hard for on his serve. Then around 10-10, maybe 11-11, Federer took more control of his own serve, and started taking Roddick’s serve to deuce several times. Each game he got closer and closer until he broke. Maybe fitness was the issue there, and Federer is slightly more fit than Roddick, which played dividends. It’s not like I think Federer played leagues above Roddick that got him the win. Despite contrary views, Federer himself admit that he got a bit lucky. He said it right after he won, he told McEnroe that, and he said it in his interview (I think). Jeez.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

mem did you even watch the interview with Pete? Pete said specifically WHY he didn’t want to say Fed was the greatest. It was because he didn’t want to offend Laver on live TV. He was being the nice guy he is and not wanting to take away from the accomplishments of 2 legends standing right in front of him. How can you not see that?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Yeah when the NCAA basketball tournament was hosted near where I live, the T-shirts for the losing team declaring them NCAA champions were distributed to a homeless shelter. I heard Federer on ESPN radio this morning and he was unaware that the jacket was in existence until after the match. I could have done without the gold bag, but the jacket was more a commentary on commercialization in sports than Federer’s sportsmanship.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Mem: “who in their right mind would put any stock into what pete sampras says regarding federer. that’s his friend, he’s expected to say that. pete has always ignored or tried to diminish what rafa has done, so i don’t expect anything less from him. when john mcenroe asked him after the final on Sunday, on the spot, live on tv, in front of the television viewing audience, if he thought federer was the greatest of all time, how did sampras respond?”

Sampras used to be my all-time fave, but I’m now losing respect for him big time. He’s successfully entrenched himself as Federer’s little stooge. Federer yanks, and Sampras jiggles up “Working, working” robotic. How else is Pete going to get his slice of wonder bread buttered, miillion dollar exhos for a few lame sets of tennis, other than playing exhos with ‘The Federer’ as the Fed likes to be called?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Scottish, good point about the lengthy clay court season has over the short grass court season.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

I might add to my thoughts on the Nadal – Fed rivalry that the ONLY tournament on grass they play together is Wimbledon so that makes it even more obvious.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

After reading more than 50 comments by Roddick’s agent, Von, I finally felt I had to comment on “Andy is THE man!! Grace, style and class, not to mention that handsome face.”

Now, I know that the Internet is a bottomless pit of irrationality, absurdity and/or denial, but to put the weird face of Roddick and the word “handsome” at the same sentence is somehow stretching it a bit too far. But on the other hand…. I remember another thread where somebody did actually say that Mirka is more beautiful than Marylin Monroe. Sure, why not.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Roddick skipping DC is for the same reason Federer skipped DC earlier this year. They’re both fatigued and dealing with nagging injuries that could potentially get worse if they’re not careful. But that’s overshadowed by how devastated they are and that they need time to recover mentally. There’s nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I wish I could call up Roddick and tell him shit happens, but he’ll get through it and next time, and there will be a next time, he’ll do better. Federer lost a heartbreaker last year then won the next slam. Then he lost a heartbreaker this year and won the next 2 slams. I think it’s a bit much to expect Roddick to do the same, but at the same time, it couldn’t be more perfect for him to have this emotional boost coming into the US Open, where he’s at home.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Scottish
This is a good point. The other factor is that on hard courts, Nadal has only recently (ie one year) had consistent success, so Federer has been in a lot of finals with different dance partners.
That said, Rafa showed in ’08 he could beat Fed on any surface.

So I would have to say that for at least one year, Nadal has dominated but overall he only has on clay. Personally, I think Fed will get back to even strength with Nadal on hard and grass, and he might win the clay match here and there, but I think overall Nadal will win on clay. The real question will be: can we expect these 2 to keep meeting like this, or are some 3,4,5 seeds going to start crashing the party?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Von Said:

“Sampras used to be my all-time fave, but I’m now losing respect for him big time. He’s successfully entrenched himself as Federer’s little stooge. Federer yanks, and Sampras jiggles up “Working, working” robotic. How else is Pete going to get his slice of wonder bread buttered, miillion dollar exhos for a few lame sets of tennis, other than playing exhos with ‘The Federer’ as the Fed likes to be called?”

Von, I have enormous respect for you, but that last post is just too much sour grapes. Sorry.

To say that Pete Sampras is a stooge is just too disrespectful even for me to describe, and I’m an Agassi man.

Seems like Fed’s 15 has made a dent in your gracious loser credentials.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

What I see from all of this GOAT stuff with reference to Sampras and Laver, et al., that so many of you want so very, very much for Federer to be the GOAT (and I hope it’s not the horned animal) that you’d rationalize every thought and see into the other greats’ minds, becoming mind readers to find a smidgen of something to reinforce your arguments. Gosh is this so necessary to have a human being endorsed as the ‘greatest’? for me, there is only ONE greatest, and it’s not a human being.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

fed is afraid Says:
“roger owes his french and wimbledon titles to rafa’s knees. rafa was manhandling roger everytime until he overplayed those knees. with a healthy rafa around roger definitely wouldn’t have won the french and most likely he wouldn’t have won wimbledon.”

Forget about Roger just now, he’s put himself in an enviably unique place by surpassing everybody else’s slam record. You can go just about everywhere screaming your head off about Rafa, but this is the era of Roger in which Rafa is living. Matter ends.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

Temple Said:

“to put the weird face of Roddick and the word “handsome” at the same sentence is somehow stretching it a bit too far”

Roddick is not by any means a bad looking man, and I’m a stright guy.

A few days ago jane said that she found Murray more appealing than Fed. Still trying to wrap my mind around that one. LOL ;)

July 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

“Gosh is this so necessary to have a human being endorsed as the ‘greatest’? for me, there is only ONE greatest, and it’s not a human being.”

Von,
1) What if these people who are looking for a greatest don’t believe in “your” ONE greatest?
2) I don’t see anyone saying Federer’s the greatest human ever, they’re saying he’s the greatest tennis player ever. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, considering his results and achievements. I don’t believe that there can be one GOAT due to the number of things in tennis you can really do. But if I had to say one player is the GOAT, then to me it’s Federer.
3) You’ve gotten to the point of sour grapes. Roddick lost. It’s a shame. I hope he gets it next year. I really do. But it’s over. You can’t be mad at Federer for wanting to be the best and trying his hardest to set these ridiculous records.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

I totally agree with Von. What is this greatest thing all about? As Nadal once said because he hits the tennis ball over the net well does not mean that he should be adored and be treated like a god. Let us just enjoy tennis that they produce and leave the greatest thing to someone else.

July 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Kimo: You’ve no idea how it hurt me to say that about Sampras, but it’s how I honestly feel from what I’m seeing. Judge me as you deem fit, but it’s not going to make me change my views, as I’ve been feeling this way for over a year now.
_______________
SS: You know I like you very much, but please, for the love of God, don’t equatte Roddick’s Davis Cup loyalty to Federer’s, there’s no comparison. Federer pretended to be injured because he didn’t want to play DC this year, and he’s never been gung-ho on Davis Cup. He sees it more of a hindrance and has said so many times. He had two guys flown in to Dubai to practise with him whiile he was supposedly injured. So how could he have been injured? Are we missing something here?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm

All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this? Their guy won the match. What’s the big freakin’ deal in admitting that Federer should have been down 2 sets to love against a guy playing lights out tennis. For all these years, all I’ve been hearing when Fed loses to Rafa is that he’s having a bad day or that Rafa is lucky. Yesterday, your guy got lucky! What’s the tragedy in admitting it?

July 6th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

von: your man played a wonderful gutsy match, hope you had the champagne. yes, the beeb commentators loved him and so did the crowd. Did you see the placard with Andy Murray crossed out and Roddick written in? The cameras kept showing it, v. funny.
giner: there will never be a final at Wimbles played in “twilight” now they’ve got the roof and the lights. One of Andy M’s match did not finish till 22.40.
OMG here go the arguments about Roger and Rafa ……round and round they go…..

July 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

SG said:

“All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this?”

I’ll accept it if you accept that Fed is the GOAT.

But you won’t, so I won’t

July 6th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Once again Federer. That’s why I can’t be a fan, even if I kill myslef to do so:
***********
Federer said he thought that Nadal’s absence had not deprived the tournament in any significant way, adding Murray had become the story of the fortnight. “If I or Rafa doesn’t win the tournament, somebody will, and there will always be a story. I think the story definitely was Murray in this tournament because of where he comes from, because of how good his game’s gotten, you know, that he had a real chance of winning here.

“I think that’s why Rafa got forgotten quite quickly, to be honest.”

http://www.Independent.co.uk

************

Fed might have 15 GS titles. But class? I don’t think so.

I am sorry Kimo and all fed fans here. This is not to hurt your feelings. You have every right to enjoy this moment. But Federer uses every moment to shoot a dart at other players. Doesn’t he know how hurtful his remarks are?

July 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

SS; “3) You’ve gotten to the point of sour grapes. Roddick lost. It’s a shame. I hope he gets it next year. I really do. But it’s over. You can’t be mad at Federer for wanting to be the best and trying his hardest to set these ridiculous records.”

Judge me all you want. As i initially said, anything I say will be perceived as sour grapes. My stance on Federer’s GOAT talk has never changed, unlike many here.

FYI, I’m not mad at Federer, I’m mad at some of you who have very little direction in life, trying to proclaim a human being as ‘The Greatest’ which borders on big-time idolatry. Can’t you all enjoy a sport without anointing your fave as “The Greatest”? Now we have those who are putting words into Laver’s mouth and disagreeing with him. Get real folks, today Federer might be the ‘greatest’ but in a few years his record could very well be broken, and all the homage would be moot.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

And for what it’s worth, I think Laver is the best ever. 2 calendar slams! He won on grass and clay. He probably would have had over 20 majors if not for that 6 or 7 year hole in his career. Federer is definitely in the GOAT mix. His career has been more dominating than Sampras’ so any argument will come down to Laver and Fed.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

I think Federer got lucky. I personally believe he shoulda won the first set and lost the second. Justice was done in the end. But after Roddick won the first, he SHOULDA ended up being up 2 sets to love. He missed a tricky backhand volley despite having been incredibly successful up at net the entire match. The third set was won by the rightful person, and so was the 4th set. The 5th set was anyone’s for the taking. Federer got lucky at the end because, for the first time, Roddick didn’t hit a first serve when he needed to and mishit his forehand. Shit happens. I’m not overly thrilled by Federer’s win as I probably would have been had it gone different. I’m more upset for Roddick, if anything. Luck played a decent enough factor in the match and Federer accounted for that. What more is there to say?

July 6th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

PS re Sampras, he made a very dodgy prima dona entrance 3 games into the match, the players were on court at the time . Must have disturbed them cos the crowd clapped.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

I’m not convinced that Rafa will be 100% when and if he comes back this year. His apparent affliction/injury is a chronic condition and one that is not easily remedied. Acute knee tendonitis has ended many an athletes’ career, including tennis player Darren Cahill’s at age 25. Having said that I’m not hanging out with Rafa in Mallorca and do not claim to know the extent of his injury. However this is a possibility that should be considered before making any claims that he is destined to come back and sweep the field at the US Open. As a tennis fan, you can only hope for his return to the tour. He is a great role model, competitor, and considerate guy for the ripe old age of 22. But I’m going under on his return to 2008 form. Maybe by 2010.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Those who think that a better returner would have blown Fed away in 3 sets yesterday are obviously forgetting that thay can’t bet on it, regardless of Fed’s rival. Nobody knows what would have happened/happen in different scenarios, whether yesterday or in last year’s Wim final or in the coming year. The IFs shall always remain IFs.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

margot: Thank you. No, I didn’t have the champers on ice. Im now more concerned about roddick’s hip and his fall yesterday.

As you can see the madness has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Next we’ll hear Federer can walk on water and fly like superman. His head will get larger and he’ll be denigrating every player. shessh, is all I can say.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Hey Von,

Great players chase greatness and take us along for the ride. They all want to be called “The Greatest Ever”. Ask Ali, or Tiger, or Nicklaus, or Sampras or Federer. Hell, even Robert Redford in The Natural said, “I want people to point at me when I walk down the street and say, “There’s greatest player to ever play this game””.

It’s fun to watch the records fall and speculate on who was better and who wasn’t. Life wouldn’t be very interesting if we all agreed with each other.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

zola said:

“But Federer uses every moment to shoot a dart at other players. Doesn’t he know how hurtful his remarks are?”

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what he said becasue it’s probably true. That’s just how things are. A few matches into the tournament, Murray was THE headline.

Just like last year when Rafa won and Fed lost, Rafa became THE headline, and Fed’s woes were only sidenotes.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Von – check yoursef for ticks today :)

July 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Federer’s a dick. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. But he has 15 slams. The record. I’d be pretty cocky, too, if I was him. And I don’t see how saying Nadal was quickly forgotten is offensive. He was. He’s not saying he himself forgot about him, because he didn’t see too excited about being number 1 knowing that Nadal couldn’t even put up a fight. Federer’s grinding out these championships. Just like his dominance, his grindingnance isn’t going to last forever. He might win a few more slams, or 15 is the end. Who knows?

July 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm

“SRM Says:
I totally agree with Von. What is this greatest thing all about? As Nadal once said because he hits the tennis ball over the net well does not mean that he should be adored and be treated like a god. Let us just enjoy tennis that they produce and leave the greatest thing to someone else.”

Mazel tov and good for you!! Not because you’re agreeing with me, but because you appear to be a grounded person and have your values in the right place.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

Kimo,
There were many headlines for Murray and many for Rafa as well. fed’s comment is not about the headlines. Murray was the wimbledon story anyway , just like the AO. But saying Rafa was forgotten too quickly, is just Fed’s way of belittling his main rival one more time.

It is not Fed’s fault. It is Rafa’s fault. he has been too respectful to Federer.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Jow W: “Von – check yoursef for ticks today :)”

Excuse me, what are you saying, please spell it out, I don’t understand.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Hey Dan – this is a totally different topic, but what is your take on the state of American Juniors tennis since Pat McEnroe took over the helm? Two US boys in the Wimby semis seems like great progress.
This would be a great topic to bring up with Pat in Cincy, off-line of course.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Yeah, Zola, Nadal should say he’s going to come back and whipe the floor with Federer’s tears. Then Djokovic should say he’s had enough of all this talk about Murray, Nadal, and Federer and he’s going to become number 1 soon and beat all his rivals. Then Murray should say Federer and Nadal are 2 of the greatest ever but he’s even greater because he can kick both their asses. And then Federer can say, well I’m number 1 with 15 slams so you all suck and I’m the best. Then Roddick should say something like, I’m going to drown them all in the giant tub I threw at Federer that he deflected with his fat head. Then Safin should say, well I’m muslim, you know that religion, muslim? I win some and lose a lot, I need another 5 month vacation after losing in the first round for the 21st time in a row. LMAO. Yeah, they should just make a skit together.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

Von Said:

“Mazel tov and good for you!! Not because you’re agreeing with me, but because you appear to be a grounded person and have your values in the right place.

WOW. So you know where values are to be placed better than most of us, huh? Believe what you wanna believe, but you are offending a lot of people right now in a very personal way.

You’re not as good as you think you are, Von.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Joe W: @ 3:13 pm, my comment was for you not ‘Jow W”. I guess i need glasses today. LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

zola said:

“But saying Rafa was forgotten too quickly, is just Fed’s way of belittling his main rival one more time.”

I think you’re being too sensitive.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Von – tick: from the word ‘poly’, meaning ‘many’, and the word ‘ticks’, meaning ‘blood sucking parasites’. …
you are down in the weeds again, where these little buggers lurk. They are attracted to expelled CO2, as in when humans are in the act of talking…

July 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

There are millions of Rafa fans and to them Rafa was not forgotten at all. Therefore that is not a true statement. Federer is perhaps talking about himself.

I can say many things about Federer that *I* think it is true and will be hurtful to the Fed fans. It is a long list , but the one that I can say is that he has no manners and no respect or consideration for other players and their fans.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Kimo Says:
SG said:

“All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this?”

I’ll accept it if you accept that Fed is the GOAT.

But you won’t, so I won’t

**************************
Fact: Roddick missed an easy backahnd volley he shouldn’t have in Set 2. Everyone knows it. Even Federer.

Fact: Even if I acknowledged that Fed was the GOAT, you wouldn’t truly believe Fed was lucky yesterday.

Fact: Laver’s two calendar slams and 6 year layoff put Fed’s GOAT status in doubt (..at least for now). Emerson was never considered better than Laver despite his higher major count. No reason that Fed should get a free pass because of larger major count either.

Fact: Federer has won his last two majors with his major rival missing from the mix due to injury. A major rival that has stopped him in Paris the previous three years and stopped him at SW19 last year (…and almost stopped him the year before). The same rival that beat him in this year’s AO. Are Federer fans so blind as to believe that his wins are as meaningful without Nadal as they are with them? Puhleeeze.

Fact: Federer has won the last two majors and 3 of the last 4. He has beaten everyone put in front of him. He’s won 15 majors over a 7 year sapn. Is he one of the all time greats? Of course he is.

*************************

July 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Kimo,
of course I am sensitive. Rafa was out with injury and has shown nothing but respect to Fed.

But that is a reminder. Give another toy to a spoiled child and see the consequences.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Kimo: “You’re not as good as you think you are, Von.’

I’m never under the illusion that I’m better than anyone and it’s why I blog here. If I had for a moment felt I was better, I’d have a severe problem and an identity crisis on my hands to deal with. Please do us both a favour and don’t read more into my words than I said. If I’ve offended any one here, I apologize, I didn’t mean to. I merely wanted to demonstrate to SRM that I view his thought processes as one who’s grounded.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

Joe W: Ah so, now I got it. LOL. You’re right, I’d better get outta here. Thanks for the reality check.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm

The players should be meaner towards one another. All the “goody two shoe” statements are syrupy sickening and very boring.

I wish more of the top players would speak out and say what they really think instead of saying the politically correct things all the time.

More honesty would be refreshing.

Common, Fed admit you hate playing Rafa. You can’t stand Djokovic and Murray. You think you’re better than Sampras. You hate to be interviewed by John McEnroe.

And Nadal admit you think Federer is lucky that you’re injured and he’s a cry baby. You hate the French people for routing against you.

Djokovic admit you can’t stand any of the players ranked above you.

Common guys, be honest. We won’t tell!

July 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Wow, that was really something. I’ll tell you, Roddick picked up a ton of fans yesterday for that gutty effort. I can’t wait to see him get over the hump – he’s awfully close to it now!

By the way, Roddick fans should check him out at Great Friends Greetings – really cool…

July 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

margot Says:
“PS re Sampras, he made a very dodgy prima dona entrance 3 games into the match, the players were on court at the time . Must have disturbed them cos the crowd clapped.”

And, then Federer looked up and said “Hi Pete”. Now, isn’t that precious? LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Von Said:

“I’m never under the illusion that I’m better than anyone and it’s why I blog here. If I had for a moment felt I was better, I’d have a severe problem and an identity crisis on my hands to deal with.”

You are under an illusion. Start to work on it.

“Please do us both a favour and don’t read more into my words than I said.”

I read them like you wrote them. Stop saying that to everybody you offend as if you are somehow above, God-forbid, making the mistake of crossing the line sometimes. Stop saying things like “I know what I’m saying will be “perceived” as sour grapes”. Bullsh**, they ARE sour grapes.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Kimo,

If Roger holds all 4 GS titles concurrently, a “Roger Slam”, that will cement him in my mind as the GOAT. That would be a truly reamarkable accomplishment in today’s era. Winning 4 slams in a row, in my mind, is pretty much the same as a calendar slam. I don’t really care about dates. I don’t think it’s relevant. It’s holding all the titles at once that really matters. So far, Roger hasn’t done this. He’s done everything else.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

“Temple Says:
After reading more than 50 comments by Roddick’s agent, Von, I finally felt I had to comment on “Andy is THE man!! Grace, style and class, not to mention that handsome face.”

Hey, if you had a handsome face, I’d say that too. I mean if people feel Federer is handsome, so why am I being ridiculous by saying Roddick is handsome? To each his own, and my own is ANDY RODDICK. HEY, HEY, IT’S ANDY RODDICK ….

July 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Yeah Von, your comments are getting out of hand. This is not about values or beliefs but about tennis. I for one do not consider Fed a god or even perfect. Fans support their athletes for many reasons and it’s normal and proper to compare greatness. The lame arguments against what he says are tiring. He meant no disrespect to Rafa and in fact it has been clear in recent months just how much he respects Rafa and admires his skills. Murray Mania was everywhere and there was very little said about Rafa. It wasn’t Roger trying to dis him it was simply a fact he was stating.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

OK Kimo, peat and repeat. Got, it? The same BS as you spout, stats, stats and more stats, and you can’t get enough of the stats. Bye Kimo.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Jesus, I think we need a new article so we get some fresh comments here. Everybody seems to be taking seems all too personal by now, it’s almost resembling the comments section in ESPN which are mostly terrible. How about we just talk about tennis and avoid taking shots at each other.

One comment on the GOAT thing. It’s obviously impossible to compare players across eras given all of the different circumstances however I do believe that as time goes by, players obviously become stronger, better, more mentally prepared, and have better technology at their disposal. The result is that players now are able to do much more than players before them, same is true for future players. With this in mind today’s top players (Roger, Rafa, Murray…) are likely playing the best tennis anyone’s ever seen or played. It is not even comparable to what Borg, Connors, and McEnroe did, never mind Laver. So to a degree the best player of this era is the one likely with the Greatest Game of All Time, call it the GGOAT, which will likely soon be replaced by some other super athlete in the future as the next GGOAT.

We all love reminiscing about older figures such as Laver, but the fact is no one has a clue about what this 5’8″ man weighing 150lbs would have done in this era of super power tennis. Imagine him having to deal with Roddick’s serves last night. it’s a whole different era. So I’m not saying this to put Laver down but merely to point out that today’s athletes are just way better than before and we should just enjoy it without pointlessly trying to figure out who would beat who across times…

July 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

SG:

“It’s holding all the titles at once that really matters. So far, Roger hasn’t done this. He’s done everything else.”

That’s a good point, and quite fair too.

Btw, you do know that Roger won three slams in a single year three times and can do so again this year, right? Just saying….

July 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Von said:

“OK Kimo, peat and repeat. Got, it? The same BS as you spout, stats, stats and more stats, and you can’t get enough of the stats”

What stats you delusional psycho?! The only stat I mentioned today is 15 slams and that Roger won ten slams after Rafa won his first. That’s it.

WOW, you’re just really crazy today, aren’t you?

July 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Kimo,

Just remember Von is rich and doesn’t need to use coupons. Her words!

She does think she’s better than other people. Her nose and posts are so high in the air I’m surprised she can breath. She’s obviously spoiled and used to getting her way. So glad Federer spoiled her snooty party!

July 6th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Scotish: “It wasn’t Roger trying to dis him it was simply a fact he was stating.”

You see, this is where I find it hard to distinguish between fan and over the line worshipping, because of the rationalization involved. How do you know that Federer was stating a ‘fact’? You don’t, but due to your love for him want to see it that way. yes? no? truth?

Anyway guys, I’m outta here and I’ll let the Fed fans bisect and dissect their hero’s marvellous accomplishments. For me it all comes down to one word: STATISTICS. BYE ALL.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Right on, Cindy_Brady. Nadal should also admit he thinks he’s a lot better than Federer and should be number 1 and hold the records and what not. But I don’t see why you think Federer hates being interviewed by McEnroe. I don’t see that. If anything, I think he likes it because McEnroe praises Federer like no other and Roger loves that. Maybe I’m wrong. But Federer should also admit he thinks Roddick’s a joke and doesn’t belong on the same court as him. Murray should stop saying he’s playing against “probably the best ever” and just say he thinks he’s better than both Federer and Nadal. And Roddick should just say he wants to kill Federer because he’s a dick. And for the love of god, Haas should admit he doesn’t actually try to beat Federer because he’d rather be a spectator. Sheesh.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Cindy Brady, Yes, I’m indeed rich, so rich with my ‘Father’s’ wealth, which is something that would truly blow your mind. Gosh, you should be so lucky, and had you not been such a “^**()”, I’d glady share it with you. Bye Cindy have a good time playing the posters, and now jumping on Federer’s bandwaggon. Enjoy the ride …. oblivion …..fading out to sunset …….. Bye Cindy …….

July 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I think the reason Von has trouble acknowledging stats is that she can’t dispute them.

When Fed starting winning slams, there were A LOT of people disputing with the GOAT talk. Their numbers have been on the decrease as Roger won slam after slam after slam after slam after slam after slam after slam aft………

July 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Joe W: See my post @t 3:47 pm. do you think it will register? LOL. Per another JW, the Duke, John Wayne, “hardly likely”. Ha, ha.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Kimo: So now you’re reverting to name calling? I’m a psycho? OK I got it. Bye Kimo.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

mem, save it! we already know that you are a butt kisser to nadal, unlike the players he plays! what do you want to do, BEHEAD anyone who says that nadal is not the perfect player you want him to be! get a grip!

July 6th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Von Said:

“Yes, I’m indeed rich, so rich with my ‘Father’s’ wealth, which is something that would truly blow your mind. Gosh, you should be so lucky, and had you not been such a “^**()”, ”

Oh yes Von, you’re pure class. You would NEVER revert to name calling.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Kimo: A footnote before i leave. i don’t have a problem with the stats, I just have a problem with you repeating them over and olver ad nauseam. it’s sickening. How many times are you going to say the same thing in one thread. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Now you can talk to the real psycho, Cindy Brady, with her illuminating and insightful comments, who’ll agree with you cause she badly needs a friend just like YOU.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

sensationalsafin,

Good Stuff. Thumbs up! I just think Federer appeases McEnroe. Could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. I can admit that.

Von,

People that are truly rich or have class don’t go around bragging about it. It just shows. You obviously are a poser. Enjoy your make believe world over the Internet. I’ll just continue to go on my merry way and be real.

Can’t wait for the hard court season to begin!

July 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Kimo: “Their numbers have been on the decrease as Roger won slam after slam after slam after slam after slam after slam after slam aft………”

I rest my case. LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

JCZ – I agree it is like an arms race and the 2009 version of things from the nutrition to the preparation to the equipment is all built on the previous eras but the quality is generally something previous players never saw on a daily basis. When Becker lost to Sampras at the 1994 Italian Open and Sampras was playing his best clay court tennis, Becker said, “He’s playing like a man from the 21st century.” due to how well Sampras was moving and hitting his shots. Well Federer is that man from the 21st century.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Speaking of post match interview, anyone notice how Roddick skipped his? Can’t blame him. It was a tough loss. An especially smart move considering McEnroe is the interviewer. Atleast Federer knows McEnroe is gonna kiss his ass like no other. But McEnroe has very little respect for Roddick so the interview would have probably gotten Roddick even more upset. I think we’re gonna have to wait a couple of weeks or months until Roddick is willing to assess the match more openly. But it’s understandable.

Von and Kimo, stop bickering about nothing because you’re not even talking about tennis anymore and it’s not fun to read.

July 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

JCZ: not sure about physicality …..Hewitt beat Karlovic, that was a strange match up. I seem to remember Newcombe, Ramirez were big guys in a different era. What’s really changed is racquet technology, give Laver a new racquet, who knows?

July 6th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

Von Said:

“I rest my case. LOL.”

I’m sorry, did I mention a stat, delusional psycho?

July 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm

At least we did not have another pst match hug by Johnny Mac …

July 6th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Von – no kidding but I’ve been told by a few that I walk like JW (due to back issues). Not sure I’m getting your reference?

Come again…

July 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Margot: But even Hewitt is bigger and stronger than Laver. He is listed as 5’11” and weighing 170lbs. He goes through all the weight training exercises that athletes do now, has access to better nutrition, and as you mentioned has a better racquet. But it is not just the racquet. In any case, how has Hewitt fared as a pro, I’d say pretty well (2GS and former no 1), but well short of the legend that Laver is. The guys winning GS are all big strong hitters.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

SG: „And for what it’s worth, I think Laver is the best ever. 2 calendar slams! He won on grass and clay.“

Fed / Nadal / Agassi won their slams on grass, clay, and hard ;-)

„If Roger holds all 4 GS titles concurrently, a “Roger Slam”, that will cement him in my mind as the GOAT.“

Nah! First of all, he needs to do something with that awful H2H vs Nadal & Murray! Then we can talk…

July 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Joe W:

This was my post: “Cindy Brady, Yes, I’m indeed rich, so rich with my ‘Father’s’ wealth, which is something that would truly blow your mind. Gosh, you should be so lucky, and had you not been such a “^**()”, I’d glady share it with you”. Hope you get it with the emphasis on the ‘Father’s’.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Btw ppl, Laver had an 11-6 record in slam finals. Not the most impressive record that’s for sure.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

So John McEnroe emphatically states Federer is the GOAT.

He used to say Laver was. What must Laver have been thinking standing 10 feet away listening to McEnroe spew that? Laver a gentlemen by anyone’s standards probably wanted to throw up.

Since Laver and Federer played in different eras, with different racket technologies, Different training styles, Different court conditions, ect…It’s impossible to make that determination. How can Johnny Mac suddenly ride Fed’s nutz and disrespect Laver and his two grand slams that way?

Even Bud Collins, who I can’t stand, would never be so impartial.

I’m also sick of hearing Patrick McEnroe’s “hellos” during his commentary.

/rant

July 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Von – geez that’s twice I’ve missed that now. I was about to ask you for a loan :)

Back to tennis?

July 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Anyone else think this might be a valid sports comparison. Duke vs. Kentucky in 1992? Duke was expected to win and won 104-103 in over time in a great game where the expected winner was pushed to the limit.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Skorocel Says:
SG: „And for what it’s worth, I think Laver is the best ever. 2 calendar slams! He won on grass and clay.“

Fed / Nadal / Agassi won their slams on grass, clay, and hard ;-)

„If Roger holds all 4 GS titles concurrently, a “Roger Slam”, that will cement him in my mind as the GOAT.“

Nah! First of all, he needs to do something with that awful H2H vs Nadal & Murray! Then we can talk…
************************

Well, he’s beaten Murray when it mattered most (USO Final). As for Nadal, they guy just has a game that irritates Fed and he wears Fed down mentally. I hope Nadal can bounce back. For that matter, I hope Djokovic bounces back. It’s just sad that a guy of this caliber is losing time.

Murray is a strange bird. He doesn’t really do any one thing in a spectacular way (…other than maybe return of serve). But, he doesn’t really have a discernible weakness either. Not sure why he has beaten Fed 4 times in a row. It’s not a fluke but it’s kind of inexplicable. On paper, Murray looks really outgunned compared to Fed. Fed has the better groundies and serve. Murray may have more feel for the ball. On the court, he finagles his way through. He has a weird game. The nearest thing I can compare it to is Miloslav Mecir. Of course Murry has bigger groundies and bigger serve. Milos could really cruise around the court though.

July 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

zola Says:
“I can say many things about Federer that *I* think it is true and will be hurtful to the Fed fans. It is a long list , but the one that I can say is that he has no manners and no respect or consideration for other players and their fans.”

What you think needs to be judged by everyone , by the majority and not just by the fans of your fave. And all this coming from the fans of a guy, who’s never won the award, which is being given to the one who’s liked by the majority players in the ATP tour, is a little surprising. But then again, I don’t need to attack anybody personally unless they attack me. Anyway, carry on!

July 6th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

sensationalsafin Says:
“Yeah, Zola, Nadal should say he’s going to come back and whipe the floor with Federer’s tears. Then Djokovic should say he’s had enough of all this talk about Murray, Nadal, and Federer and he’s going to become number 1 soon and beat all his rivals. Then Murray should say Federer and Nadal are 2 of the greatest ever but he’s even greater because he can kick both their asses. And then Federer can say, well I’m number 1 with 15 slams so you all suck and I’m the best. Then Roddick should say something like, I’m going to drown them all in the giant tub I threw at Federer that he deflected with his fat head. Then Safin should say, well I’m muslim, you know that religion, muslim? I win some and lose a lot, I need another 5 month vacation after losing in the first round for the 21st time in a row. LMAO. Yeah, they should just make a skit together.”

CORRECT AND WELL SAID!

July 6th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

SG said: “All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this?” Federer was certainly fortunate on that point, to the extent that Roddick was there to put away the volley and missed, but that’s true of every unforced error in the match for either player. But anyway, what does that have to do with the other 300+ points? The reason I don’t accept these comments about luck is that they are totally overrated. I don’t believe Federer said his victory was down to luck – and even if he did, it wouldn’t make it true. He won because he won more of the points that count end of story. Putting his victory down to luck denigrates his accomplishment. Even on that volley – had he not even put the ball in play he would have lost the point, so luck in this regard it totally overrated.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Have to like Dick Enberg as a commentator. He has the voice for it and he never seems to say really stupid things like Bob Costas. Enberg shows real respect for the athletes battling without putting anyone down. McEnroe is McEnroe. He’s fun to listen to, even when he’s FOS. Pat McEnroe is a little too white bread for my liking. He has neither the panache of Enberg or the passion of his big brother. I can take him or leave him.

I don’t really like Brad Gilbert much either. He’s a major blowhard and a waffler. Ask Gilbert I’ll bet he’ll tell you that Agassi is the best ever. I saw Gilbert rally with Sampras in 92′ in a practice in Montreal. Gilbert basically said on court that Sampras wasn’t even trying and he was toying with him. In Gilbert’s book, he says Agassi was better than Sampras. A real revisionist.

I think Cliff Drysdale is pretty good. Kind of an Aussie Dick Enberg with more knowledge of the sport.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

I very well know that there’s someone from Rafael Nadal’s official website who’s venting out all the frustration here by alleging Fed to be amongst the most disgraceful man in the ATP tour despite the fact that Fed’s the biggest fav of fans, media and legends alike. And then this is for others….. If you believe Laver so much when he says Fed’s not the Greatest Tennis Player Ever, then you also gotta have the guts to accept when he describes Fed as one of the most humble and down-to-earth persons he’s ever known or it’s just that you would accept only that much which satisfies your ego? It’s very hard to accept this for some, but that makes the case even stronger for Fed’s admirers and the Fed bashers are losing their ground too fast in this respect.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

Gilbert is funny to look at, but the guy is a flip-flopper. But how in the world can you like Enberg and Drysdale??? Drysdale is Pat’s crony the way Robinson is John’s. He doesn’t know anything about the sport anymore. He’s just there to agree with Pat and disagree with Brad. And Enberg, OMFG, Enberg. If there’s one commentator I truly despise it’s Dick Enberg. The guy knows nothing about tennis but he’s been commentating for 20+ pointless years. He says useless random unnecessary things. He talks a lot like Johnny Mac only atleast Johnny Mac can analyze the actual sport, Enberg can’t do anything. He’s got the voice, everything else he has makes him the absolute worst.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Sorry MMT but I don’t see it that way. Luck has a bearing. There are 300+ points to look at. But, you don’t often see a pro blow a near eye level sitter at a critical moment. They’re pros because they put these shots away…every time. And Roddick isn’t No. 150 in the world either. He’s a top ten player with GS pedigree. He made an error I’ve pretty much never see from someone of his caliber at a moment like that.

The fact that Fed may have gotten away with winning a match he probably shouldn’t have isn’t denigrating. It’s reality. It sometimes happens that way. It seems that Andy may have been injured when he wiped out. How is that not a lucky break for Fed? What about when Nadal got hurt two years ago? How can these things not be good breaks for Federer? He was fortunate that these events happened because they gave him an additional advantage. There is an old and very true adage in sport. You have to be good to be lucky. Fed had some luck yesterday. Andy helped him out a little. Fed still won. Fed fans are very insecure and fickle. Not only does Federer have to win, but you can’t challenge anything about how he wins. As long as he wins, he was always better. When he loses, there’s some lame excuse for it. He had mono, he’s gonna’ have a kid, Mirka kicked his shin in the middle of the night, he ate sushi on the right side of his mouth when he normally eats it on the left. Tell these same Federer fans that Sampras would have had 3 or 4 majors had he not been sick at the 94′ FO (I think) or tore a quad in the 98 USO or didn’t have Thalassemia Minor and they’ll say, “What a bunch of excuses.” If a guy’s greatness can’t stand up to a little scrutiny, how great can he really be?

Luck is arbitrary. When Becker won the 89′ USO, he did so with a letcord against Rostagno that most times, would have fallen on his side of the very tight net. It was match point (I think) and he escaped. He was lucky and then capitalized on his luck.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

SG,

I do like Dick Enberg and Cliff Drysdale. Both class acts. Brad Gilbert is a douchebag. Don’t get me started! Patrick McEnroe is very vanilla and boring as Hell as a commentator. But not as bad as Jim Courier who was monotone and reminded me of why the remote has a mute function. Johnny Mac does say interesting things in an entertaining way. Just wish he was consistent.

On the Woman’s side, I love Navratilova. Could do without Carillo. Tired of her stale metaphors. The U.S open always has Tracy doing some matches. She’s decent.

Wish Lendl would do more commentating. He’s very articulate and funny. Someone who knows the intricacies of being a professional tennis player. People pay attention when he talks.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

SS,

I didn’t say that Enberg knew tennis. I just said that he’s a class act. Cliff knows his business. I don’t think he cow tows too much to PMac. The truth is commentating is a matter of personal taste. There are people out there that like Letterman and Conan O’Brien. I can’t stand either one. The seem like buffoons to me. Johnny Carson was a genius. He could interview a farmer from Delaware and turn it into something worth watching. Being a sports commentator doesn’t require a lot genius. Some sports knowledge, a good voice and some witty rhetort and you’re in business.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

CB,

Have to agree. It would be interesting to hear Lendl more. I didn’t like him a whole lot when he played. But, as time has passed, I have a definite appreciation for how good he was and how he changed the sport. I’ve re-watched the 87 & 88 USO finals with him and Wilander. Incredible stuff. He fought wars on the court. It would be cool to hear his opinion on the air.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

How about this?…let’s get Connors, Lendl and JMac together for a USO broadacast. How much fun would that be? Somewhere up there, Vitas would be laughing his a$#@$ off.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Zola, I looks as if Fed was saying the Wimbledon media forgot about Nadal because Murray was a local on the rise (with a positive h2h against Fed and Nadal(I think)) so the media basically shunned the world # 1 and defending champion for their great british hope. Federer only stated exactly what had taken place from start to finish. They completely disrespected Nadal in that sense. But I can’t see how Fed saying what had actually happened as him taking a shot at Nadal.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe not.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

In yesterday’s match Roddick blew the chance of a lifetime in the second set and so he lost. Luck also may be played a part, but Fed also played better at the vital moments and Roddick played worse. Roddick shouldn’t have done that, but as he did it, he paid the heaviest price.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Seraphim Says:
“Zola, I looks as if Fed was saying the Wimbledon media forgot about Nadal because Murray was a local on the rise (with a positive h2h against Fed and Nadal(I think)) so the media basically shunned the world # 1 and defending champion for their great british hope. Federer only stated exactly what had taken place from start to finish. They completely disrespected Nadal in that sense. But I can’t see how Fed saying what had actually happened as him taking a shot at Nadal.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe not.”

Completely agree.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm

huh Says:
In yesterday’s match Roddick blew the chance of a lifetime in the second set and so he lost

—> the sentence above is what luck (good fortune)…whatever you wanna’ call it, is all about. Roddick actually played better for the first 4 sets and the early parts of the 5th. Only when Andy tired late in the 5th did Fed push his level above his opponents. Hey…Fed won…I’m not saying he didn’t deserve to win. He put himself in a position to win and took advantage of the situation. I’m just saying the match should not have gone past the 4th set. If Andy had done what he is more than capable of doing, the match would have been over earlier…IMO.

I hope no one wants to say that Fed was better for the first 4 sets when Roddick had both service break and clearly won a set (Set 4) with a 6-3 score. Frankly, when Roddick was fresh, he looked liked the better player. He had to work harder (like Rafa does) but he was outplaying Fed. One bad break cost him a win. He blew it and he’ll have to live with it if he nevers win Wimbledon.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

I guess some’d have been happy only if Fed had stated that Rafa’s more important than him at the Wimbledon. And Fed was in no way wrong to state that he knows how much a tough loss hurts at Wimbledon to him. People’ve forgotten that last year’s Wimbledon was a matter of pride for Federer, especially after Rafa crushed him so mercilessly at the French Open 08. Winning the Wimbledon would have salvaged his pride but it was not to be and it left Fed shattered, miserable and his confidence was dented. His ego was bruised too. He actually became rattled and impatient after that loss to Rafa and went through the tough time. So it DEFINITELY HURT Fed, though I can only say I felt Roddick’s pain was more yesterday than Fed’s pain in his 08 Wim defeat. But Fed surely wasn’t kidding to us when he said that he’s experienced some acute pain himself as well before he regrouped to win the back-to-back WIM-FO duo this year and that way he tried to make Roddick feel a little better. But if others think otherwise, I cannot and don’t wanna convince them.

July 6th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

SG, thanks for your response.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

During that epic 5th set this is what I noticed.

Seemed like Andy Roddick wasn’t playing to win it so much as extend the match as long as he could. I don’t think he really ever had belief, deep down, that he could win. He’s a choker in big moments.

Federer, on the other hand, looked like a man who knew, it was just a matter of time before, he would win.

Roddick is now 0-4 to Federer in GS finals. A telling stat. His only win in a GS final was against Juan Carlos Ferrero (hardly a hard court hall of famer).

Roddick was lucky not to have met a great player in that final. Tennis was in transition during 2003. Agassi and Sampras were at the the end of their respective careers and Federer was not Federer yet. No Nadal on the scene at that point. Roddick was a transitional #1. No wonder he didn’t stay there very long.

I’m not knocking Roddick but I believe he’s made the most of his talent. He should be thanking his lucky stars he was once #1 and he owns a grand slam. Many other players would kill to have that on their resume. I don’t feel sorry for Roddick. He’ll always be rich and famous with a beautiful wife. Just without a Wimbledon title. That’s not so horrible a life.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

Thank you MMT for responding to SG’s comments. I was getting ready to send one until I read your comments which were similar to mine.

Let me just add, since people are throwing this word luck all over the place on Roger’s win. You know who I think was really lucky in that match? It was Roddick. He was lucky that Roger did not play the usual game he plays against Roddick. Otherwise, Roddick would not have even gotten into the 5th set.

All this calling Roger lucky is ruining the beauty of that match. Both played very well and should both be lauded for that. All the sour grapes about luck will only backfire on those who would attribute luck to Roger’s win. The guy is good, consistent and a hard worker. All his wins are fully deserved.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

SG says ” When he loses, there’s some lame excuse for it. He had mono, he’s gonna’ have a kid, Mirka kicked his shin in the middle of the night, he ate sushi on the right side of his mouth when he normally eats it on the left.”

LOL, love the sushi one – did that really happen?

I agree that luck is a factor, maybe not the deciding one, the “be all and end all”, but certainly a factor.

Re: commentators: I think Drysdale is a little weird and stuffy. J-Mac is too obvious in his preferences and skews his commentary accordingly, but I don’t hate listening to him because he can be entertaining, and I suspect he’s a pretty cool guy away from it all. But him and Ted are kind of silly together as Ted is just his “yes man”. Agassi was in the booth at the USO in 07 (I think it was) and I thoroughly enjoyed listening to him. I wish he’d consider commentating as he has good insight.

I like the Eurosport coverage we’ve been getting via TSN in Canada; it’s less chatty and less biased imo.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

After all is said and done, I believe what Fed once said. It is in his racquet as to whether he’d win or lose at Wimbledon. I don’t care what others would think, I’d stick with Fed on this. And I must break the silence on one thing, re. yesterday’s match and that is, Fed was also not playing his superb tennis of 2004-07 and he still won it through his patience and determination. Anyway, I think nobody should say Rod wouldn’t have pushed Fed even to 5 sets yesterday if Fed was at his best. But again, Roddick was determined as hell to play the match and he’d have given it all and that’s enough for me to conclude, based on his grass-court pedigree that Rod’d have anyway pushed Fed to 5th set regardless of Fed’s form.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

SG Says:
“…50 of Fed’s 100 winnners were aces. That means he hit 50 non-service winners over 7 sets. Not exactly burning the house down. That’s a passive performance. He stayed back and reacted all match.”

Federer had 57 winners while Roddick has 47 (aces not included). Can you guess who had a more passive performance? As I have posted earlier, Roddick’s playing “better” than Federer is an illusion. You just have not seen him play that well against Federer before.

SG: All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this? Their guy won the match. What’s the big freakin’ deal in admitting that Federer should have been down 2 sets to love against a guy playing lights out tennis.

Do you see what is wrong with your argument? You are basing your conclusion on something that did not happen? “Should haves, could haves, and ifs” never happened. What you should admit is that Roddick lost not because the other guy was lucky. He simply was not good enough to win. Ergo: He lost. It is as simple as that. Do not use scenarios that only exist in your mind.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

huh,
say what you want. what Federer has said about many players ( not just Rafa), is on the internet.

You might like his narcissism and arrogance. I don’t. And actually if you look at his other remarks about Rafa, it is ***Federer*** who wants to forget about Rafa, ( he said, my problem is not clay, it is Rafa. Another time he said something like he was tired that in all his press conferences his name is brought up…). Just check this out to see how forgotten Rafa is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/jul/06/roger-federer-greatest-rafael-nadal

That statement is just a clue to federer’s brain!

July 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

Seraphim,
I don’t think Federer was talking about rge British media. They always talk about Murray like the Spanish media always talks about Rafa or Swiss media about Roger. But I hope you are right. Seriously! Because even for Roger, that is a damn arrogant statement to make.

July 6th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Polo: “It was Roddick. He was lucky that Roger did not play the usual game he plays against Roddick. Otherwise, Roddick would not have even gotten into the 5th set.”

You’re absolutely incredible! So now federer didn’t play his usual game? I suppose the same can be said in the ’08 wimby also when ‘the Federer’ lost?

“All this calling Roger lucky is ruining the beauty of that match.”

And, what do you think you’re ruining? The beauty of the match by saying Roddick was lucky, and Federer did nolt play his usual game. How can there be beauty in ashes?.

“Both played very well and should both be lauded for that. All the sour grapes about luck will only backfire on those who would attribute luck to Roger’s win. The guy is good, consistent and a hard worker. All his wins are fully deserved.”

How could they both be lauded for a well-played match if as you say Roddick didn’t play well and was lucky to have the match taken to a 5th set? From what you’re stating the only player who played well, was Federer. As I said you’re incredible.

All of these analyses are so wrong, and unfair, in which the main objective is to denikgrate Roddick’s performance ‘big-time’. Is there any objectivity here? I see only sujectivity.

Now we’re hearing that the 2003 field was a transitional time in tennis? And Roddick’s 2003 GS win was a lucky one over JC Ferrero who’s also a GS winner. So where was the TMF? He was in that field, which comprised of GS winners, to name a few, Moya, Safin, Agassi and Hewitt. And the same field was around in 2004 when Federer began to win, so by this analogy, Federer did absolutely dominate in a weak field, as many have stated. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

July 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Federer said, when asked if he missed Nadal at Wimby “No, not really.” A classy sportsman would have said something along the lines, even if he didn’t mean it: “Yes, I miss him because Rafa is great for tennis and he brings so much to the game. His presence is definitely felt because I would have liked to play against him again in the final if we were to meet.” Instead, Federer just said, “No, not really”, making nadal sound as unimportant. It’s similar to his comments when he was asked if he’d watch the ’08 AO after he was beaten by Djokovic.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Yes, zola, just because someone wrote it its true (end of sarcasm here)…. please, there is no question, we have all witnessed the evidence. Federer is the GOAT.. and hes gonna take the GS record to something around 18… you should just be glad you were lucky enough to get to watch it… Nadal is not the only one with a winning record over Federer….it doesnt make a difference…. 15 grand slams and hes just 27. GOAT, period.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

typo @ 6:58 pm: ‘denikgrate’ should be denigrate.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

Jane: I agree on the Eurosport coverage … far superior.

I notice this blog has deteriorated recently into a he-said she-said name calling exercise and its not good …

…maybe try sticking to talking more about tennis and less about how your favourite player should be better recognized by others …

Bottom line: Roddick played as good as we’ve seen him play yesterday … Federer won and now has 15 GS’s.

Onto next topic …

July 6th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Von,
“No, not really.” A classy sportsman would have said something along the lines, even if he didn’t mean it: “Yes, I miss him because Rafa is great for tennis and he brings so much to the game. His presence is definitely felt because I would have liked to play against him again in the final if we were to meet.”
Just because Federer didnt say what you expected him to say now hes not a “classy sportsman”?… please, Federer is the definition of a classy sportsman. They asked him after he won yesterday about his reclaiming of the no.1 spot and he was the one that mentioned that he was aware that Nadal couldnt play…. just because Roddick lost doesnt mean Federer is now suddenly a bad guy…. pretty much every player acknowledges (past and present) this… why is it that you people dont?

July 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

First off it is not classy at all to call out someone is not classy, whatever it means. Then, other questions follow like classy to whom? You tread into an irresolvable area.

I don’t care much about who said what, but Rafa was not in the last 2 Grand Slam finals. Let’s keep it to tennis as to why. He had this one huge, dumb swing at the AO and tried to push himself in a couple of subsequent tournaments and hurt himself. And he was compelled to sacrifice 2 Slams for 1. That was dumber. It is all hypothetical now, but had he let AO go, he could have been in the FO & SW19 finals. Dumb swing shot, i.e. the dumb scheduling, exposed him.

Rafa was not in the media soon after 2nd or 3rd day of the SW19. His absence was mentioned only cursorily as a defending champion.
Why would Fed be thinking (remembering) about Rafa after he pulled out of the tournament? Was it a requirement of the tournament to remember Rafa? Did I miss something? Is Rafa Fed’s best friend or girlfriend that he should be worrying about his knees? Instead of practicing and playing matches, should Fed be doing some memorials for Rafa, as if he were already dead, or press conferences talking about how classy Rafa is? What kind of dumb questions are these? If Fed said Rafa was forgotten, he was summarizing London tabloids and British sports channels that he did not read or hear much about Rafa on: It was all about Murray mania and England’s hope for winning the home Slam in 73 years (this is my agreement with Seraphim).

Zola says, “Fed might have 15 GS titles. But class? I don’t think so…But Federer uses every moment to shoot a dart at other players. Doesn’t he know how hurtful his remarks are?”

Sorry, Fed does not use “every moment to shoot a dart at other players.” I wish he did. I wish he were like Ali. He seems to do it occasionally in a subdued and subtle manner as per the tradition of “tennis-is-a-gentle-man’s-sports.” I have never heard of players complaining about his “shoot[ing] a dart,” except one Scott: “he has said negative things about my game.” Even this complaint does not say Fed’s comment has hurt him, “It doesn’t bother me,” adds Murray.
—————-

A couple of days ago, when Rafa’s revised schedule for the rest of the year came out, it appeared that it was not meant for the main stream media, and the MSM failed to notice. I found it buried in a relatively unknown blog, and I posted it here.
My first read on Rafa’s revised plan was: “I read a subtle challenge in that revision of the plan: ‘I will go everywhere you go, play every Slam you play. I will work toward preventing the landmark from getting bigger.’ With a scheduling error, Rafa must have felt that he allowed the landmark’s increment by 2 Slams, which has added more work to his own career goal.
I am glad that the real challenger will return to the court with a clear aim to win the USO this year.”
If anyone missed it, Rafa’s revised schedule can be accessed at:
http://www.nadalnews.com/2009/07/04/nadal-changes-his-priorities/

July 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

“…maybe try sticking to talking more about tennis and less about how your favourite player should be better recognized by others …”

How can that be done when there are posters who are looking to denigrate Roddick’s performance in yesterday’s match? What we’re seeing here is nothing new, as this is the usual MO whenever Federer wins. Fed’s fans are not just happy he won, oh no, they have to destroy his opponent’s match play, in an endeavour to place Federer high upon a pedestal. And, as always, Federer comes out as the superb player And, if their comments don’t do it, then as sure as hell, the good old resume is pulled out, repeated ad nauseam. This stuff is now old.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

NachoF; “why is it that you people dont?”

Hey watch it, who’s you people? I could ask you why is it that ‘you people’ can’t give credit where credit is due?

July 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

Von,
regardless of how terrible some fans can be, of how awesome Feds resume might be, or of how badly Roddick played or not….. claiming that Federer is now not a “classy sportsman” is unfounded and uncalled for.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

NachoF: As I previously stated, anything I say after yesterday will be interpreted as ‘sour grapes’, and it will all go back to Roddick’s loss. You know it’s very difficult to comment on these threads truthfully due to the large amount of Federer’s fans. It is not a one on one anymore, it’s usually about 30:1, with every Tom, Dick and Harry adding his two bits input and taking his best shot at the non-Fed poster. OY VEY!!!!

July 6th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

Von, to counter these Fed fans who want to denigrate Roddick’s performance, you’re trying to denigrate Fed’s performance. Federer got lucky, Roddick fell, this and that. Well, I believe that you make your own luck. As Federer always says, he just tries really hard to put himself in winning positions and tries to gives himself opportunities to win.

SG, I don’t think Roddick played better for the first 4 sets. I think it Federer was still a little better in the first set despite losing. I think he was definitely better in the 3rd set and was pretty comfortable in the TB. The 2nd and 4th set were very much in Roddick’s favor. The very beginning of the 5th, Roddick gave Fed a look at some BPs, but erased them quickly. From about 3-3 to 11-11, Roddick was pushing Fed a lot harder on Fed’s serve than Fed was pushing Roddick. After 11-11, Fed stepped it up, hammered down a bunch of aces, and gradually pushed Roddick till he cracked.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Von,
I havent said a thing about Roddick on this thread… who said I didnt give him credit??? he did play good tennis.. he is an awesome player.. I wasnt surprised he gave him a hard time.. he had already taken a set off Federer at Madrid.. something Nadal couldnt do so I was expecting a tough match but of course my money was on the undisputed GOAT…… just because some people here have decided to not give credit to Roddick you come out and say that Roger Federer is not a classy sportsman??….. I guess the best way to describe your reaction is… immature.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

“You know who I think was really lucky in that match? It was Roddick. He was lucky that Roger did not play the usual game he plays against Roddick. Otherwise, Roddick would not have even gotten into the 5th set.”

LOL!

July 6th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

NachoF: I’m sorry, but some of the stuff that leaves Federer’s mouth is just ‘not classy’. You want to be blinded, go ahead, but I’m very, very sorry, not for the sake of popularity will I be a PC poster, no way. As the old Southern gentleman said; “I calls them as I sees them.’ I think Federer’s remarks to Roddick about winning at Wimby another time was just plain dumb and uncaring. I wonder how Federer would have felt last year when he was crying, if Nadal had said such to him?

July 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Von, Zola, why does Federer have to be classy? Is it in the tennis rulebook? You know your usual chapters, “The Forehand”, “The Backhand”, “Keeping Score”. Then you have “On court mannerisms”, but is there an “Off court mannerisms”? Federer’s a dick, but he’s an awesome tennis player. Roddick is a good tennis player who’s hilarious and witty and always respects his opponents. So?

July 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Von Says:
How can that be done when there are posters who are looking to denigrate Roddick’s performance in yesterday’s match? What we’re seeing here is nothing new, as this is the usual MO whenever Federer wins. Fed’s fans are not just happy he won, oh no, they have to destroy his opponent’s match play.

I do not want to argue with you or the other Roddick fans but you brought it upon yourselves, this what you call “denigrate Roddick’s performance” when instead of simply praising Roddick for a truly good game he played, you kept reiterating that Roger got lucky and that Roddick was the better player yesterday when it was clear to the whole world who won. It is the end that matters, not how you got there. I knew from the beginning that all these rationalizations of Roddicks fans would backfire in the end. Roddick played very well and you should be proud of him. He lost. Accept it and hope that he continues with all these remarkable improvements in his game.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Von,
I have not talked to you since yesterday. I did not know how to empathize appropriately with you. I did say I felt a little bit sad, and I would have been happy for A-Rod win, even if not in the same proportion.
Assuming the furor and pain have abated a little bit, I have decided to engage with you about a couple of things, forgoing, of course, all the older posts.

—-denigrate Roddick’s performance in yesterday’s match—-either naïveté or too much negative energies consuming mental life

—“destroy his opponent’s match play”—a few are doing it, but they should not be.

—“endeavor to place Federer high upon a pedestal”—I don’t know if it is needed anymore; he is already there.

— “good old resume”—-should be used for a job application, but should not be used to cancel out difference of opinion: It is a refusal to engage in a healthy discussion.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

“And nobody else would have hung around long enough to win that match. As in 2007, when he beat Rafael Nadal in five sets, Federer snuck past an opponent who was frankly the better player on the day. He did it the same way, by serving lights out—the only thing you’re given on a tennis court is your serve, and he took it with everything he had—and saving his best tennis for the tiebreakers. Like the man he passed on the all-time Slam list, Pete Sampras, Federer continues to succeed in his late 20s because he does nothing more, or less, than win. Sometimes that means finding a way to take a match that belongs to someone else.”

From one of the blogs on tennis.com

July 6th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2009/07/w-the-lucky-few.html

That’s the whole article.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

I can’t help but posting this because it’s exactly what most of you need to understand.

“In few other sports are you responsible for everything that happens during play, including your good and bad luck. Aside from aces, there are virtually no winning shots from your opponent that you can honestly say were “just too good.” Chances are, an imperfect shot from you allowed your opponent to hit that winner. (This is what makes a loss in tennis so hard to accept—deep down, you know it was your fault). And vice-versa, simply by putting one more shot in the court, as Federer did at 5-6 in the second-set tiebreaker, you give your opponent a chance to screw up, to send a volley 10 feet wide. If he does, you weren’t merely lucky; you had a hand in making your good fortune.

“You create your own luck”: It’s a phrase that’s both too optimistic and too cruel, but it’s undeniably true in tennis, where cause and effect, fortune and skill, are fully intertwined. Staying healthy for every Slam while your main rival falls to injury; getting yourself to the semifinals while your other rivals fall prey to pressure or exhaustion; remaining calm when you’re on the verge of defeat and you have a chance to break the all-time record for majors. These are seemingly routine marks of consistency, but no one else in tennis history has matched them. Luck? Roger Federer has earned more of it than anyone else”

July 6th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

SS: “Von, to counter these Fed fans who want to denigrate Roddick’s performance, you’re trying to denigrate Fed’s performance. Federer got lucky, Roddick fell, this and that. Well, I believe that you make your own luck. As Federer always says, he just tries really hard to put himself in winning positions and tries to gives himself opportunities to win.”

Show where I said Federer was lucky. I stated Roddick fell and he hurt himself, is that a lie? It was obvious Andy was in pain, but I never said Federer’s win was due to that fall. Maybe you don’t want to admit it that Roddick fell and he was in pain, but it did happen on TV worldwide, and anyone who was observant could have seen how Andy moved after the fall. Have I made that an issue? No. I merely mentioned he got hurt and after that I saw his performance dip. Most players would have used that fall as an excuse, but not Roddick. Let’s keep things in perspective shall we, instead of blowing a few words as a profound statement.

It’s not like Roddick to ever skip a Davis Cup match, and I’m very sorry he has to do so, but I’m also hoping that he’s not very badly hurt and there is no lasting damage.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

Von,
I happen to have found those remarks pretty cool. He told him not to give up. That he obviously proved he could do it. Just like Nadal told Federer everytime he lost the FO final… Roddick didnt seem to take it bad.. just with a cocky douchy (trying to be) funny remark that we are all now used to…. but overall a very respectful manner. No one is a making a big fuss over it…. The whole world (including Roddick) would agree that Federer is a classy sportsman. Even Roddick said he would love to hate Roger but he is just too classy to be hated…. but yeah, whatever, like you said, you are just saying whatever comes out of your mouth and cant be taken seriously cause your guy lost… so cool, I wont take any of the crap you keep on saying seriously ;)

July 6th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

Von,

About your tirade on those people who call Roddick lucky. That was in response to you and others who call Roger, the winner, lucky. I knew that “lucky” argument will backfire. And look who is all so twisted up now? Emotionally and logically twisted. You have lost your equanimity. But I understand and feel for you. That loss was hard to take especially because he may never pass that way again.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

It didn’t look like he was in that much pain after a few games went by. Maybe I’m wrong, but it didn’t look that way. It looked like he brushed it off and continued serving and playing great. For a while, I really wondered how Federer was ever going to break Roddick, whereas Roddick had 2 solid breaks over Federer.

July 6th, 2009 at 7:51 pm

Bleacher reports posted a picture from Wimbledon of fans holding up signs saying “we miss you Rafa”! I missed Rafa too, throughout the tournament. I don’t think he was forgotten at all. I tried to post the link to the picture but it didn’t post, maybe it’s in moderation?

July 6th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

polo:

“I do not want to argue with you or the other Roddick fans but you brought it upon yourselves, this what you call “denigrate Roddick’s performance” when instead of simply praising Roddick for a truly good game he played, you kept reiterating that Roger got lucky and that Roddick was the better player yesterday when it was clear to the whole world who won.”

Please show me where. Are you confusing me with some other poster by saying I keep insisting that Federer got lucky? If so, I’d like to see my post and the many occasions of my insistence. Show me some facts, please. I dislike these carte blance assumptions and presumptions.

After yesterday, I decided that it would be best to not discuss the match because by now I’m fully cognizant of Fed’s fans MO — they engage in sic name calling and many low class aspersions, now I’m a ‘delusional psycho’. Anyway, be that as it may, I couldn’t refrain from so doing, due to the denigration of Roddick’s match play. But, as usual, whenever I comment on Federer, there’s always a backlash to contend with from the Fed posters, not one, two or three but dozens. So here we are with maybe one mention of the match by me to my commenting repeatedly on Fed’s luck. Am I surprised, hell no, it’s par for the course.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Polo;

“About your tirade on those people who call Roddick lucky. That was in response to you and others who call Roger, the winner, lucky. I knew that “lucky” argument will backfire. And look who is all so twisted up now? Emotionally and logically twisted. You have lost your equanimity. But I understand and feel for you. That loss was hard to take especially because he may never pass that way again.”

Again, SHOW ME WHERE. I don’t think I’ve lost my equanimty at all. I’ve not resorted to name calling and blasting anyone, I merely commenting in a cil tone and staying on topic. And, what tirade are you talking about? Here’s the meaning of tirade, and please show me what I’ve done to constitue a ‘tirade’:

tirade: a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation.

Again, please show me my bitter comments and denunciation, per tirade definition. And, please, don’t ignore my request to show me those comments, because I’ll be very disappointed in that kind of action. Thanks.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

NachoF: “whatever, like you said, you are just saying whatever comes out of your mouth and cant be taken seriously cause your guy lost… so cool, I wont take any of the crap you keep on saying seriously ;)”

Really, tells me a lot about your ability to discuss anything rationally — name calling and reducing other people’s remarks to ‘crap’ speaks volumes of the writer. What crap I keep on saying? One time I said your ‘boy’ didn’t sound classy, is tantamount to ‘you keep on saying’. Show me the many times I keep on saying. Only kids are supposed to exaggerate not supposedly ‘adults’. One time is not ‘always’, not keep on saying, it’s only ONE time, meaning ‘uno’. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the ride.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

TennisFreak: At last a voice of reason and thanks. It it what it is sadly, as you can see. Is there any rational thought, NO? I’ve spent too much time here, so I’ll take my leave. However, I’d like to wait around for Sensationalsafin and Polo to steer me to my comments where I supposedly mentioned Federer got ‘lucky’.
_________________

SS & Polo: I’m still waiting to see those posts wherein I supposedly mentioned Federer got ‘lucky’. got ‘lucky’.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

NachoF says “The whole world (including Roddick) would agree that Federer is a classy sportsman. ”

Well, this is a bit of an overstatement. Many do not feel this way; but many do. That’s the way it goes. Classy typically means “stylish or sophisticated.” So it’s open to interpretation. As I think Tennis Freak said above, it gets pretty wishy-washy. That article from the Mirror UK didn’t paint him in that light (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-sport/2009/07/06/federer-is-greatest-ever-but-genius-goes-missing-on-his-big-day-115875-21497887/). So it varied. “Classy” is at least somewhat subjective.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Von, idk where you said it. I’m not gonna waste my time going through every single post.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Polo:

“That loss was hard to take especially because he may never pass that way again.”

You’re right he may never pass that way again, considering you’ve previously mentioned (*see footnote) that Roddick’s over the hill and his game is ‘tic’ filled. Which makes Federer’s remarks that Andy will win another Wimby sound even more far fetched, don’t you think? You know what it’s such fun playing with you guys. LOL.
______________
* NB: I said you’ve previously mentioned. I ddn’t get carried away by saying: you ‘always’, ‘insisting’, ‘consistently’, oh no, i said previously mentioned. it could have been one, two or three times, but I’m not going tol exaggerate. Isn’t it wonderful?

July 6th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

I’m enjoying reading Von’s cackling posts. In another life she was probably a pigeon. They hang around parks and bus stations shitting on things and bothering people. Andy Roddick should be proud his #1 fan is a crazy bird lady who squawks on the Internet all day about sour grapes.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

Von Says:

Federer said, when asked if he missed Nadal at Wimby “No, not really.” A classy sportsman would have said …
Posted July 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Von Says:

… some of the stuff that leaves Federer’s mouth is just ‘not classy’.

…Federer’s remarks to Roddick about winning at Wimby another time was just plain dumb and uncaring.

Posted July 6th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Von Says:

One time I said your ‘boy’ didn’t sound classy.

Show me the many times I keep on saying.

Posted July 6th, 2009 at 8:16 pm

I count more than one…. also, what “name calling” are specifically refering to?.. I mean, what name did I give you??….you said yourself that what you said cant be taken seriously cause you were to bitter over Roddick choking his chances away……I guess Im also exaggerating that

July 6th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

SS: “Von, idk where you said it. I’m not gonna waste my time going through every single post.”

Oh you’re not going to waste your time looking through every post, after making such a broad accusation? No problem, I suppose you know how that sounds don’t you? You know what, and save this for later in life as experential learning, don’t ever accuse anyone without proof because it will look like you’re just pulling stuff out of the air. And, I can say without a doubt, you’ve done that in this instance, because I didn’t say Federer was lucky. It was a couple of other posters, but I’m not going to tell you who said that.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Hey Jane,

I wish the sushi story were true. There’s nothing like some hyperbole to drive the point home. You understand my point. Look at this blog. Many of the Federer fans are unwilling to say anything more than “Roddick is lucky Fed wasn’t playing well.” It’s ridiculous. Roddick didn’t let him play well. He served Fed out of the building for 5 sets. He stayed with Fed off the ground. He broke Fed more often than Fed broke him.

But somehow, it was Roddick that was lucky. How dare Roddick show himself in another final against the living legend Federer! The unmitigated gaul of the man is unforgivable. Have you ever heard such nonsense? The man earned his spot in that final. He beat Murray to get to the final. A man that has recently owned Federer. Maybe Fed’s even luckier than we all know. Roddick saved him from playing a very hot and confident Murray that has owned him for the last 9 months.

Most of the people throwing all the accolades at Federer are the first ones ready to dredge up every excuse when he gags profusely against Nadal. Hey, isn’t Federer the best player ever? Why can’t he beat Nadal? Then it’s Nadal that’s lucky. Try to convince them otherwise and they’ll threaten to eat your first born. These people will tell you Fed has the best forehand, a great serve, a great backhand. All true! Yet, when he plays Rafa, it all doesn’t add up to a hill of beans. Strange when you consider that Rafa just stays back and brow beats his backhand. Not exactly an unknown strategy at this point. But, no need to worry. Rafa is just lucky. Even after handing Federer all 5 of his major losses. Duhhh…it’s just coincidence that he keeps losing to the same guy. Rafa isn’t better than Federer. He can’t be. If he is, I’ll have to take down the poster of Federer that I bow to before I start breathing in the morning.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

all right i’ll say it
he was lucky
wimbledon 07 final-lucky
us open 07 final-lucky
us open 08 final-lucky
french open 09 final-lucky
wimbledon 09 final-lucky

July 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Von, if there’s no proof that someone killed someone, does that mean it didn’t happen? Sorry for falsely accusing you. I guess I got mixed up with all the posts.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

NachoF: “you said yourself that what you said cant be taken seriously cause you were to bitter over Roddick choking his chances away……I guess Im also exaggerating that.’

You guys, are unreal. Yes, you are exaggerating, most definitely. SHOW ME THE POST where I said “I’m bitter”.

The times you’ve mentioned was one time I initally said it, you rebutted and it’s to that rebuttal the word ‘clasy’ was used in my answer, and the one at 8;16 pm is where I’m asking you to show me how many times I said he wasn’t classy’. To me that adds up to ONE.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

NachoF: As an addendum to my post, you have successfully taken one comment out of contest, and perpetuated usin g my replies as justification, for your argument. I’m a factual person, so show me the whole post, not the convenient parts where my answer again included the word ‘classy’ and you’ll see that i’m not saying the same over and over again. But that’s not possible is it, because how else are you going to justify your exaggeration.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

SG, I’m a Fed fan. I think the reason Federer didn’t play as well as people are used to is because of Roddick. Roddick never let Federer get on top of him. I don’t think that, in any way, means Federer played bad. He won didn’t he? So he played great, just like Roddick did. Whatever Federer didn’t do was because Roddick didn’t let him. I don’t think this applies as much to a lot of the Nadal matches because Federer seems to tighten up for no reason at times against Rafa. Against Roddick, there were times Federer looked like he was playing too tight. The second set comes to mind. And I agreed with the commentators that said the reason Federer was playing tight was because he couldn’t handle Roddick’s power. But Federer played pretty normal apart from that and Roddick still did a damn great job of pushing Federer around. Was Federer lucky? Yep. Was Roddick lucky? Uhm, he lost, so I’d say no. Was he lucky to be in the final? ^#$*&&@# NO!!! He played incredible tennis, and had a few points gone his way here and there, then he’d have won the whole thing. Is there really any reason to discredit either guy? They put on a great show. I’m stoked it was a such an epic. I’m even more stoked Roddick has a great backhand that I’m sure will take him far in future slams and tournys. Jeez.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Lucky bastard.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

fed is afraid Says:

all right i’ll say it
he was lucky
wimbledon 07 final-lucky
us open 07 final-lucky
us open 08 final-lucky
french open 09 final-lucky
wimbledon 09 final-lucky

WOW!!

Federer should spend all his time in Vegas, then.

Ya’Rly

July 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

SS; As I said save it as experential learning. If you are uncertain, you should not accuse — facts are all that count.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

I am also sick of seeing all this “Fed is such a great sport” stuff. Yeah, when he wins. The true measure of sportsmanship is how you handle losing. How you manage your emotions when you are facing terrible disappointment. When Fed lost last year’s FO, he bolted from Bud Collins and did not give him the interview. Here was a man with 12 major victories ducking an interview in front of the Parisian fans that wanted to hear him say a few words. This year, with 13 majors in his pocket, he loses to Nadal and starts balling. It took away from Nadal’s moment but he couldn’t hold it together.

Yesterday there stood a man who has known nothing but GS disappointment for the last 5 or six years. A man (yes, a man) who has 1 major he won 6 years ago. How did he react to the most painful loss that perhaps anyone has absorbed in a major? He was clearly hurting. Anyone with a heart could see it. He gave his interview to the crowd. He ribbed Sampras. he didn’t run. He didn’t cry. This man knows who butters his bread and he paid hommage to them, even when he was as disappointed as tennis can possibly make you feel. Roger Federer have won a tennis match. Andy Roddick did something more important. He exemplified what it means to have respect for your fans and your competition. He put his pain aside and acted like a champion…which he truly is.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

Back pedaling are we Von??

Typical!!

July 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

Von, last time I checked this was the internet chill out thinking people are calling you out really.

Go outside take a breath or two, come back it’ll be better :)

July 6th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

SG, I agree. But I think he did talk to Bud Collins last year, I think it was in 07 he bailed. But Johnny Mac now does those interviews and Roddick bailed on him after he lost. It’s understandable. These guys don’t really wanna talk about their heartbreak so soon.

But aside from that, Fed’s a fuggin sore loser. Always has an excuse. Always has something bad to say about his opponent. He should be more gracious, which he’s not. But what are you gonna do? After winning so much, it’s not so hard to believe that he’s such a fathead.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

SG: “Hey, isn’t Federer the best player ever? Why can’t he beat Nadal? Then it’s Nadal that’s lucky. Try to convince them otherwise and they’ll threaten to eat your first born.”

Yes, as they are doing right now. I’m being acussed of using your ‘lucky’ remark. LMAO. I guess soon I’ll be tarred and feathered.
_________________
Cindy Brady: I thught you said you were leaving yesterday because ‘Your work here is done”. Lord have mercy, you are one important person, who’s been appointed to oversee a task to the bitter end. And yet, 24 hours later you’re still here pick, pick, picking and making yourself more of an idiot with each word you write. Tell me something, do you hate women? It seems to me that all the posters you’ve targeted are the women. OY VEY. The light bulb has been turned on. Carry on, but please do try to do so smartly.

July 6th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

SG,

LOL. Federer has a mix of fans, I guess. Some are completely able to see the other side of the (Swiss) mountain. Others are stuck on top and pleased to be looking down, so to speak.

The sports writer at the Mirror agrees with your assessment of the match anyhow; he said the following:

“The irony is it was probably the world number one’s poorest performance in a men’s final here or at any of the other Majors. […] The reality, hard though it may be to swallow in the rush of acclaim for a great champion, is that Federer did not win this match so much as Roddick lost it. The best that can be said about Federer is he hung in there. He toughed it out. He stuck around long enough for Roddick to falter.”

But it’s a pointless exercise in trying to convince people who believe otherwise; they’ll see it how they see it. Others will see it differently. There are a number of different ways of interpreting facts, statistics etc.

I find it interesting that when Rafa wasn’t even playing this event he somehow nonetheless enters the conversation, and suddenly the H2H between him and Fed is reevaluated so that it’s significance is lessened (?) because of the length of the clay vs the length of the grass season.

Okay. But how about this? Isn’t Fed the hard court King too? I mean, haven’t a lot of his slams come at the USO and the AO? In fact, haven’t *the majority* of his slams come on hard courts?

My gosh, they have! 5 USOs and 3 AOs I believe (correct me if I’ve got that stat wrong). And yet, Rafa has beaten Fed in a hard court slam final; indeed, in the first one they ever played! And Rafa’s head to head on hard court against Fed is dead even at 3 a piece. (Funny how people insist Rafa will never win the USO…)

Rafa has beaten Fed in the grass court slam final, too, on his third try. But Fed has never beaten Rafa in the clay court slam final, or semifinal. Never.

Thus, trying to rationalize that H2H and somehow make Rafa’s accomplishments seem less significant is not going to prove much. Nor will trying to rationalize Murray’s winning H2H.

That’s just the way it is. Tennis is at least partly about match ups, and figuring out ways to overcome bad or difficult match ups. Roddick’s clearly on his way to doing that with Fed; he keeps getting closer; their last three matches have been more extended affairs than in the past. Has Federer figured out a new way to play Nadal? Can’t wait to find out when they next play!

July 6th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

topspin: “Von, last time I checked this was the internet chill out thinking people are calling you out really.”

Oh yeah, then please tell me why I’m being accused of saying stuff I din’t. If my name wasn’t mentioned it wouldn’t matter, but when it’s used, then I think I need to defend myself, don’t you? We have people who are suffering from short-term memory loss and are confused, so they pounce on anything at hand. Anyway, thanks for your concern.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

Federer was lucky Djoko didn’t take him out in the ’07 USO. He should have. I don’t understand Federer tactically. At least year’s USO, he really took it to Murray in the final. I thought it was the best GS final he played. He beat down Murray with aggressive tennis. Really took it to him.

Then he plays this passive crap against Nadal and Roddick, Djokovic. Even when Roddick lost to Federer at the 2006 USO, Fed just seemed reactive. Andy seemed to be missing a few of the pieces in his game necessary to compete with Fed. If Roddick can get through the pain of this loss and his injury, he will be a USO threat. And this time he’ll have more than a punchers chance.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

Hey NachoF:

Sensationalsafin says: “Always has something bad to say about his opponent. He should be more gracious, which he’s not. But what are you gonna do? After winning so much, it’s not so hard to believe that he’s such a fathead.”

Take note. How do you like them apples?

July 6th, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Von,
You said it two times.. but that makes no difference, really…its not like you regret saying it…. Your (outrageous) claim that Roger Federer is not a classy sportsman will always be there, twice…. right after your “please dont take anything Im about to say seriously cause Im sad that Roddick lost” comment…. so yeah, everyone understands you cant possibly think Rolex Federer isnt classy….. it just makes no sense

July 6th, 2009 at 9:11 pm

SG: “If Roddick can get through the pain of this loss and his injury,…”

Thank you, at least someone other than myself saw Roddick was hurt yesterday.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

NachoF: “right after your “please dont take anything Im about to say seriously cause Im sad that Roddick lost” comment…. so yeah, everyone understands you cant possibly think Rolex Federer isnt classy….. it just makes no sense …”

I did NOT say that, again show me my comment. You are grasping at straws. Now you’ve changed your tune to my saying ‘classy’ twice, not many times. How can I believe anything you say. If your memory is so good, you should be able to find my comment, and it’s not hard, because this is the only thread active since Federer won yesterday. Again, I want to see this comment where I said: “please dont take anything Im about to say seriously cause Im sad that Roddick lost”. Again, reiterate, SHOW ME THE COMMENT.

Rolex Federer — that kind of stuff should impress you, but I’m not in the least bit impressed. I’m more impressed by people who have substance to their character, not things.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pm

I dont understand how

Roger Federer said:
“He played unbelievable”
“Andy, you played an unbelievable tournament”
“You are gonna come back and win it”
“You are an unbelievable guy”
“Today I was on the lucky side”
can come out as cocky or whatever you might call it… you cant get more gracious than that

July 6th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Hey Jane,

No doubt that in fact Fed’s best surface is DCII at the USO. The speed of the surface. The trueness of the bounce. No improvising necessary. Just flat out ball strking. His strength. He will be a force to be reckoned with at Flushing whether Nadal plays or not. I think the grass makes him uncertain and passive.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Its not like you ever showed me where I supposedly called you some name…. but I did look to to find where you said something like that and…. apparently what you say will be interpreted as ‘sour grapes’ but you dont mean it like that.. I, at first, understood that you really didnt mean what you were saying, but now I understand you are not at all ashamed of your outrageous claims.. .. even more impressive…. You heard it here, guys, Von stands by her “Federer does not have substance”
Federer is not a classy sportsman” etc etc etc comments.
Also, she claims she is a person of facts.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Von,

I thought that by the end of the 5th set, some of Roddick’s serve velocity had been lost. Perhaps to due to injury, I don’t really know. Some of it due to fatigue. This gave Federer a chance to get a few more balls back. One thing’s for sure. There was no choke in Roddick from Set 3 onward. He showed his metal. I have often been very critcal of Roddick’s game. Clearly, Larry Stefanki has tapped into some thing that have connected with Andy. He is more agressive on the crosscourt forehand, he hits it flatter and deeper. He is more flexible with hitting his backhand. He is mixing up his server better too. There was a first serve he hit at 104 MPH. A complete change up. Fed literally got way out in front of it like a batter completely fooled.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Again, why does Federer have to be classy? Who cares if he is or isn’t?

July 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm

NachoF Says:
I dont understand how

Roger Federer said:
“He played unbelievable”
“Andy, you played an unbelievable tournament”
“You are gonna come back and win it”
“You are an unbelievable guy”
“Today I was on the lucky side”
can come out as cocky or whatever you might call it… you cant get more gracious than that

*********

It’s easy to say this drivel when you win. It’s a lot harder to say nice things when you come out on the losing end. If Federer loses another major, we’ll see if he behaves the way Roddick did.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

NachoF Says:

I dont understand how

Roger Federer said:
“He played unbelievable”
“Andy, you played an unbelievable tournament”
“You are gonna come back and win it”
“You are an unbelievable guy”
“Today I was on the lucky side”
can come out as cocky or whatever you might call it… you cant get more gracious than that

The crazy Roddick fanatics (Von & Co.) try to spin their web of misinformation because they are bitter losers. What else could it be? They just can’t accept that their boy (Roddick) got beat by the better man, on and off the court. It’s really a shame. Von should have been casted in “Mean girls”.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvwaQqQgaUM

sensatiionalsafin,
He doesnt have to… but he simply is

July 6th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

SS,

You are right. Federer doesn’t have to be anything. In reality, he has no obligation to anyone but himself. If his life ended at the tennis court, and we never saw him anywhere else, fine. But, here is a guy who courts our money thourugh endorsement deals. A guy who loves the attention that goes with being No.1 in the world. Where is that attention coming from? Who is Roger Federer if the stadiums aren’t full? He’s a Joe Average nobody blogging at 9:43PM like us. He owes a great deal to both the fans that love him and those who don’t. Still, with all that, he doesn’t have to do anything classy. But wouldn’t it be nice if he did?

July 6th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

… this forum has turned into a children’s playground … just becauses it the internet people don’t have to behave like they’re back in school :)

Federer won Wimbledon, whether it was by luck, Roddick error, injury or whatever …

I saw the match and Roddick played the best I’ve ever seen him play. He pushed Federer and could have won the match … but he didn’t.

Federer won the match and now has 15 GS …

Would you like the International Tennis Federation to repeal any of his victories )or others) on account you didn’t like the outcome?

At the end of the day he appears to be a pretty decent Tennis player, and given his own peers appear to believe he is a good guy … then maybe you should leave it at that …

… life will go on. If Roddick has truly developed into a better player he will have lots of time to prove it going forward …

… chill out time … or chilax (as Roddick noted on Tweeter)

July 6th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Cindy Brady,

Wouldn’t it be nice if, in the heat of the moment after a loss, that Fed would say the same things he says when he wins. I think that this is what everyone is getting at. You can’t possibly imply that Federer behaves the same way when loses as when he wins.

Hell, last year in the FO final, he wasn’t even in the match. It’s not like Rafa beat him deep in the 5th or something. He was rocked by Nadal in straights. As bad a beating as any great player has ever taken in a major final. He acted less then sportsmanlike on the court in the moments just after the loss. Would it have hurt to say to Bud, you know what, I had my butt handed to me today by the best clay court player in the world…but I’ll be back.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

NachoF, if that’s an example of Federer being classy, then he fails.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

Am I witnessing a nervous breakdown here? Some people do take their losses so hard. Since we are basking on “lucky”, I consider Federer fans to be lucky. Their idol has the most number of grand slams, has won all four majors, is considered by many including tennis greats to be the best ever, and has accumulated plenty of amazing records that could be the envy of any tennis professionals. Therefore, any bickering or any arguments against him falls flat. Federer as well well as his fans could not care less what their detractors say to impugn him. He has the records, the trophies, yes everything a tennis pro strives for. He is Federer and the rest are not. Lucky fans, I must say.

July 6th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Laver > Fed…what a laugh. The guy is 5′ 9″ and would by today’s standards be classed as hitting like a girl…. modern strings or not. There is little argument that were all the variables between the eras homogenised, that Fed by sheer size would lay waste to Laver…I’m an Ozzie by the way.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

sensationalsafin,
its an example of Federer saying things like “Nadal dominated the whole tournament” after he lost…. definitely not a sore loser attitude in my book…… you want him to not be upset after he lost?.. he gave credit to Nadal even though he was upset… thats the definition of good sportsmaniship

July 6th, 2009 at 10:07 pm

SG Says:”All I’m saying is, Roddick outplayed Fed and lost. That’s it. Why can’t the Federer fans accept this? Their guy won the match. What’s the big freakin’ deal in admitting that Federer should have been down 2 sets to love against a guy playing lights out tennis.”

Comon SG.. Roddick stuffed up that 2nd set.. but then, Fed also couldnt convert 4 set-points in the 1st set.. especially when one or two of them were clearly on his racquet.. a down the line forehand missing the line by less than a millimeter. So.. if both hadnt stuffed up there, it would have still been 1-1 and not 2-0 down..or 2-0 up.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Polo: I’m still waiting for you to show me my post where, in your dreams, I said Federer was ‘luicky’. You kn ow what, you can’t because there isn’t any such post from me.
__________________
NachoF: “but I did look to to find where you said something like that and…. apparently what you say will be interpreted as ’sour grapes’ but you dont mean it like that..”

So let’s get this straight I didn’t say that, but it’s your interpretation that what I said could ‘apprently’ be interpreted as ‘sour grapes’. So we’ve gone from my making an express comment to your interpretation of what I apparently said. My oh my, are you a tale twister. Anyway, you admitted that I didn’t say that, and it’s all I wanted to know.

“.. even more impressive…. You heard it here, guys, Von stands by her “Federer does not have substance”.

Did I say that? No, I didn’t you’ve again twisted my words to suit your imagination. I never said ‘Federer has no substance.”

This is my comment to your remarks wherein you alluded to Federer as “Rolex Federer”:

Rolex Federer — that kind of stuff should impress you, but I’m not in the least bit impressed. I’m more impressed by people who have substance to their character, not things.

I was remarking on your use of the ‘watch’ which you seem to like. My mention of ‘things’ should have made it clear.

I hope you’re having fun twisting my comments which is tantamount to being untruthful, but I suppose anything it takes to make Fderer look good will do, isn’t it. Have fun, and it’s very enlightening to see how the anonymity of internet can show up some personalities, e.g., Cindy Brady.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Polo: Did you find that post? I’m still waiting for you to find what’s not there. Unbelievable.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm

************sensationalsafin Says:

Von, Zola, why does Federer have to be classy? Is it in the tennis rulebook? You know your usual chapters, “The Forehand”, “The Backhand”, “Keeping Score”. Then you have “On court mannerisms”, but is there an “Off court mannerisms”? Federer’s a dick, but he’s an awesome tennis player. Roddick is a good tennis player who’s hilarious and witty and always respects his opponents. So?*************

OOps, I didn’t say he needs to be classy. I said he is not! His tennis is fine with me.

You need to clarify this who talk abput Fed’s Grace and class and ammerns , etc….. I am quite able to separate these from one another.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

You are right, you didnt say we shouldnt take what you say seriously… I misread… which makes this whole thing even more astounding… you stand behind every outrageous thing you have said about Federer today…. wow.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:41 pm

typooooooooooz!

abput=about
ammerns=manners

July 6th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

SG:

I know you’re NOT a Roddick fan but you are an objective poster. However, I think you need to spell it out in bold capital letters, so that ‘Polo’ can stop blaming the Roddick fans, which amounts to probabaly only me, for anything you say with respect to Federer. I think we have a problem where some have severe comprehension problems, cannot proces information, and misinterpret what’s written. LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

NachoF: What’s outrageous? An opinion? Come on you are just covering up what you misinterpreted by looking for more excuses. The truth is I didn’t say what you accused me of saying and you were WRONG. Now admit it and move on.

to say i think a statement made by federer was not classy is now interpreted as ‘astounding’. Here’s the meaning of astounding:

astounding: capable of overwhelming with amazement; stunningly surprising.

Gosh, if one word ‘classy could overwhelm you so, I wonder what would happen to you if something really terrible were to happen in your life, e.g., like your car engine dying or you getting mugged. Now that would be astounding.

Pray tell me, which is more outrageous: your calling Roddick a ‘douche’ or my saying Federer’s statement wasn’t classy? Did I become overwhelmed? No. I didn’t even dignfy your drivel with an answer. Move on, move on.

July 6th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Polo, for Von’s sake I’ll make it clear that I, SG, being of sound mind and body (last I checked anyway), believe that Federer was one lucky SOB to pull off that win yesterday. Please be clear Polo that it is not Von saying this. It’s me, SG. So, if in the future, you feel the need to express your fanatical Federer views, you may do do so to either Von or myself. No need to bash Von alone for I share her views on yesterday’s match.

Whaddya’ think Von? Easy to comprehend?

July 6th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

This has just become a comedy with a funny Psych script:

Imagine if you will: Two young men who are fixated on ‘classy’ an old woman stoking the fire, and another accusatory young man about to have a nervous breakdown over the word ‘lucky’. ROTFL.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

SG: Thank you very much.

While I was writing my post @ 11:00 pm, you posted @ 10:59. I love it, I’m LMAO — the comedy is unbelievable. See my post @ 11:00 pm. The funny part is I NEVER said Federer was lucky. But Polo is now convinced I did, has become so fixated and cannot move on. Then on the other side, we have SensationalSafin and NachoF who are fixated on ‘classy’. Nachof is also fixated on some imaginary remarks I made. And, to add some spice, we have Cindy Brady stoking the fire. I think we need a Psychiatrist here.

How do you like this comedy — I LOVE IT. Aren’t you glad you’ve begun posting again? ROTFL. I’ve gotten my laughs for today.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

TejuZ Says:

Comon SG.. Roddick stuffed up that 2nd set.. but then, Fed also couldnt convert 4 set-points in the 1st set.. especially when one or two of them were clearly on his racquet.. a down the line forehand missing the line by less than a millimeter. So.. if both hadnt stuffed up there, it would have still been 1-1 and not 2-0 down..or 2-0 up.

*********************

Tejuz…If I remember right, you were one of the first to call Nadal lucky when he was beating Federer. Particularly early in his domination. Care to explain why Nadal was lucky but Fed wasn’t? Was there any missed Fed forehand in the first set as easy as the eye high forehand volley A-Rod missed at the end of Set 2? Answer…No. Dude, chill. Your guy won. All the Fed fanatics are arguing like they have something to prove, like Fed lost. I thought Fed proved it all on the court yesterday. Based on all these defensive reactions, not even the Fed fans really believe their own rhetoric.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Von
***
I NEVER said Federer was lucky
***

I think it was me. I clarify it here that to me Roger was lucky to win yesterday. Roddick lost that match. fed did not win it.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Von,

It’s a zoo in here but hey, would you really want it any other way? Nothing like a close tennis match to turn cyberspace upside down.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

Von,
Covering up?… what are you talking about>??What i misunderstood from you has nothing to do with our discussion…. the only difference it makes is that you really stand by your (yes, outrageous and unfounded) claims … instead of at least having an excuse for making them…… the fact remains… you suggested Federer has no substance, you said he is not a classy sportsman, you said you only said it once but it was actually more than that and you said I called you some name which I never did…. all factually wrong, false….

July 6th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

Is it only me who thinks that the statement, “X-player (who actually won the match) did not win it, but Y-player (who did not win)lost it.” So, what did X-player do? Did he just sit there and watch the other player bash his head against the wall? To me that is the most asinine statement in all of sport.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

ptlookout: that’s the first (and hopefully the last) time I have (or ever will) read anyone so flippantly denigrating a great player like Rod Laver because he was just 5’9”. I’m really speechless.

SG: That luck has a bearing is a given in any tennis match – I didn’t say luck doesn’t have any bearing – only that it is overrated, and that in this case you have overrated Federer’s “luck”. You point to Roddick’s error at 6-2 in the tie-break – well, Fed kept in play, which is something the likes of James Blake and Fernando Gonzales regularly do not do. But what about the other 3 set points? And what about the rest of the match?

You emphasize Roddick’s error on a single point, but you’re selective in your choice of points. For example, when Federer hit his slice backhand long by an inch up double break point at at 5-5 in the first, a shot he (and every other player on tour) hits in his sleep; did Roddick get lucky or did Federer just make an error? Federer hits a passing shot on the next break point that’s called good and not overruled; 5 years ago the Roddick would have been down a break in the first, but in 2009 he challenges successfully – was Roddick lucky that he had hawkeye? No mention of that – your emphasis on luck is reserved for Federer. And if you’ve never seen an error like Roddick’s in the tie-break, then I submit you’ve not watched much tennis…but I know that’s not true, so I won’t say it!

And you’ve characterized it as Federer winning a match he shouldn’t have – that’s a matter of opinion, not fact or reality. But you characterize everyone who believes, as I do, that there is no such thing as deserving a victory (you either win or you don’t win – end of story), as being fickle. But I am merely stating the obvious – it is you who is fickle in deciding who deserved to win a match based on a point here or a point there, regardless of who actually earns the victory. There’s no running out the clock in tennis – you have to close the deal. And how do you know Federer wouldn’t have come back from 2 sets down like he’s done in 2 other GS matches this year? Pure conjecture.

And all these excuses for Federer you’ve cited – I can see why you’ve built up a resentment to any semblance of giving Federer his due – but this is a strawman – I’ve certainly never said anything about mono or injuries or anything else. And regardless, excuses given for Fed’s failures in the past have absolutely nothing to do with a purely subjective claim that because of this point or that point one player was lucky, while the other was not. If both players are lucky, then there is no reason to cite luck. The only reason to cite it is to qualify a result, which I think is fickle when you do it for one player and not for another.

And this contention, that the better player (on the day) always wins, is not reserved for Federer – it applies to whoever wins that match, because in sports it’s the results that matter – not style, not gumption, not aggressiveness, and not tactics, etc. What matters is results, Fed got it yesterday and others will have it on other days, but to qualify results based on who gets them is fickle and unfair to the winner. And it’s fascinating that you’ve cited the example of Becker at the USO in ’89 – I have cited it myself specifically to refute this luck argument (http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2009-06-19/1623.php). That netcord occurred in the 4th set – he still had that set and another one to win – nothing lucky about that. And you are aware that was a 3rd round match and he had another 4 matches to win? Becker may have gotten lucky on ONE point – but he wasn’t lucky to win the whole match or the US Open. And Rostagno wasn’t the better player on the day – he had played better up to that moment in the match, but it was up to Rostagno to finish the job and he didn’t, and the same has to be said for Roddick. Becker went on to win the match – so did Federer.

Nothing lucky about that.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm

So it was not Von. Thanks for the clarification then because you two sound the same. You can call Federer lucky 15 major times over but it still would not change the fact that he has 15 majors, more than anybody who ever played the game. I am not a Federer fanatic. I would have been just as happy if Roddick won. What I find offensive is when someone denigrates somebody’s achievement like what most Roddick fans have been doing. Federer and his fans have nothing to worry about anysayers. They are being barked at because they have the goods. Their idol delivers consistently and that is one reason for the negative comments which is a form of envy.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:39 pm

SG: The circus is now open. As you can see, its not over because the fat lady isn’t singing. ROTFL. I can’t stop laughing. BTW, shall I call you in future as a witness for the defense? The Plaintiffs are a bit unhappy.
_______________
Zola; Thank you for coming forward. Shall I mark you as ‘Exhibit it A”? LOL. As you can se I’m taking heat for your remarks but somehow my accuser cannot produce the evidence.
_______________
NachoF: “What i misunderstood from you has nothing to do with our discussion….”

You’re wrong, it has everything to do with it, because your whole argument is predicated upon your assumption. BTW, we’re not having a discussion, because that’s not possible — you’re bordering upon hysterical blindness, where you’re not seeing reasonable arguments. Anyway, it needs to stop. I suggest for your peace of mind, you read again, and you’ll see Zola made those remarks as well. Your comprehension skills have deteriorated. Assumption is not admissible, it’s similar to hearsay.

You did accuse me of ‘sour grapes’ based upon what you called your ‘apparent’ misinterpretation of some comments I didn’t even make. I’m willing to let it go, and have done so many posts away.

“…the only difference it makes is that you really stand by your (yes, outrageous and unfounded) claims … instead of at least having an excuse for making them…”

So my comment that Federer’s remarks is not “classy” has really got you disjointed, eh? Well, live with it, just like I have to live with the Roddick ‘douche remark’. OK enough of this silly garbage, for a while it was funny, but it’s become stupid. Enough. Post as much as you want, I’m not going to answer. I’ll be watching you when you decide to unload on Roddick again, and I won’t be quiet when it happens, as I did the last time. You want an apology from me, then give me one, otherwise, let’s call this a wash. Enough already, sheesh.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

MMT, there, that’s a good post… objective, logical, simple and fair.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Polo: Where’s my evidence? Stop sermonizing will ya. You were WRONG, admit it and move on, instead of making that silly statement that SG and I sound alike. You accused an ‘innocent’ person, me. Why can’t you just stop there, wipe off the egg from your face and move on. BTW, surprise, surprise, you ARE a federer fanatic, and the roddick fans have done nothing, because the Roddick fans did NOT, and I repeat, did NOT, say Federer is ‘lucky’. SG told you that, but yet you keep on and on. Oh my you’ve become hysterically blind.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

“You’re wrong, it has everything to do with it, because your whole argument is predicated upon your assumption.”

Not even close to being true… I had already criticized what you have said about Federer before I said anything about ‘sour grapes’.. in fact, when i mentioned it , it was because I was willing to cut you some slack considering you yourself (I thought) were admitting to that…. but you werent… so my initial criticism stands… instead of you having an excuse for your rambling… but I see that clinging to that provides a good excuse for you to flee the discussion… considering I listed all the factually wrong things you said.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

“MMT, there, that’s a good post… objective, logical, simple and fair.”

But of course, you’re both Federer fans, so what else is new?

July 6th, 2009 at 11:50 pm

lol, apparently according to Von, we are all hysterically blind and she is the one that sees clearly…..

Von’s lesson for today:

“Dont be fooled guys, Federer is actually not a classy sportsman.. The media is hysterically blind”

July 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Von,
yep, cite me as evidence A!

Polo,
I said fed was lucky yesterday. I also think he got lucky in the FO this year and I can stretch it out to say he was lucky in wimbledon 07. But I didn’t say he has been lucky 15 times! That is no accident. I was criticizing him for a remark he made about Rafa.

I have also to clarify that you and all Fed fans have the right to enjoy this time. Whether I like Fed or not is irrelevent to his achievements.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

How do all these arguments end? By stating the fact and the obvious. Federer won Wimbledon 2009. Roddick lost because he played the better game. Does that sound logical?

It has been more than 24 hours since the final ended. So I bid adieu to all. Thanks for the lively discussions. We will cross paths again after the US Open. It would probably be more interesting. Sleep tight, dream well and may good things happen to everyone. After all, it is just a sport. There is always the next event to look forward to and hope for an ending each of us wish for.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

SG: “Based on all these defensive reactions, not even the Fed fans really believe their own rhetoric.”

Hysterical blindness and/or selective assimilation of facts. This is unbelievable. It’s always been difficult to discuss anything with respect to Federer with one of his fans, because they all jump in and turn it into a house of horrors. sheesh.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

NachoF

The majority may not be right all the time. George Bush was elected **twice** as the president of USA. There are many reasons why a journalist writes something about a player or why a player votes for or against another one. Anyway, enough said. Enjoy this time. Cheers from me.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Zola: Thank you. Now please tell NachoF that you were the one who initially said Federer was not classy. I came in at the tail-end and added my two bits, but i’m now getting the heat. I’ll mark you as Exhibit B. LOL. The guy is about to have a nervous breakdown over that word. LOL.

July 6th, 2009 at 11:59 pm

zola,

yeah but in this case it would mean that the whole world is blind!.. we can see that he is a likable guy… and hes very respectful…. the fact that only some Roddick fans are claiming the opposite the day after the match ended tells you something about their intentions/feelings.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:01 am

Polo: Not so fast, where’s the evidence?

July 7th, 2009 at 12:01 am

Last post for Von, go back and read all your posts. You are the one rambling. Your posts are loaded with venom directed to everyone who does not kneel in front of Roddick. If you think I am backing off, yes I am. For your own sake because I see the makings of a nervous breakdown. I see delusions of persecusion, denial, passive-aggressive behavious and emotional lability.

You need to rest.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:03 am

Von, I want to apologize for misquoting you about calling Roger lucky for winning. That is all I would take back. The rest of what I posted, I sincerely mean. Even the part where I think this Roddick loss is driving you to the brink of a nervous breakdown.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:08 am

Polo: A nice out, some tranferrence of guilt. show me the evidence. There isn’t one drop of venom in my post and you know it, but I digress. You’ve been proved wrong so now you latch onto something else. Dubai does it for me as to who you are. Goodnight Polo.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:12 am

Von,
***
Zola: Thank you. Now please tell NachoF that you were the one who initially said Federer was not classy
***

you are taking me to the witness stand one more time!

I hereby testify that it was me, Zola, that said Fed is not a classy guy ( see the evidence above in one of my posts – independent.com) I think I said:” he has 15 majors, but class, I don’t think so!”
and I stand by my claim, no offense to my dear Fed fans here.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:17 am

OK, group hug everyone.

I am out now. :)

July 7th, 2009 at 12:19 am

Zola: Thank you very much. I mark you as Exhibit ‘B’. As you can see it’s been a 3 ring circus. Polo and NachoF are convinced I did what to whom, and now the Roddick fans (which comp;rise of just me) are being blamed, for stuff we didn’t do or stated. SG cleared that up, but it’s not enough for Polo who has nolw gone on to another topic featuring moi. They’re still fixated, stuck, cannot move on, in denial what have you. It’s unbelievable. LOL.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:23 am

SG Says:”Tejuz…If I remember right, you were one of the first to call Nadal lucky when he was beating Federer. Particularly early in his domination. Care to explain why Nadal was lucky but Fed wasn’t?”

If you can show me the quote where i said Nadal was lucky in his win against Federer? Was that in the Rome final when Fed choked by missing 2 forehands on his match points?? Other than that, i dont remember having said Nadal was lucky..probabaly u have a very good memory what every poster posted in the last few years.

But besides the point.. u dint reply to my original question? why was Fed lucky.. cuz Roddick choked that 2nd set? what do u make of Fed missing 2 makable forehands on his set points in 1st set?

I know you are a huge Sampras fan … as i remember you very vociferously supporting ‘The Age of No competition’ blog by Sean in 2006… and u must be so damn pissed now, that Fed has overtaken Sampras. Unlike the comments during ‘The Age of No Competition’ where you were ridiculing the competition that Federer faced, now you are saying that Fed is being lucky against the very same competition. Last year, everybody were saying, this is the true test for Federer, since competition getting stronger with advent of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. Still, who do we always see in finals of a Grandslam?? Its still Federer.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:55 am

Von, Fed’s comment to Roddick was not dumb or uncaring at all. Your brain is working havoc with you these days to give you some false sense of satisfaction. You clearly think that most of the supporters of Fed are blind and Fed-worshippers, but you either conveniently forget or deliberately want not to accept that Roddick has become some sort of PERFECT PERSON to you, which he’s not. You have nothing to do with sour grapes at all, you are delusional and in denial of the truth on certain things, but I cannot blame you for that as human nature’s not perfect or even close to perfect. However I really got the feeling that you think that you know everything otherwise you’d not have told me assuring that you know more than I’d ever care to realise. Can you really bet I’d not know more than you as time passes? If you were my classmate, then only you’d have known how unrelenting I’m in the matter of knowledge. And don’t make the blunder of considering youself THE knowledgeable or THE ethical one.

July 7th, 2009 at 3:45 am

Zola says, “Federer uses every moment to shoot a dart at other players. Doesn’t he know how hurtful his remarks are?”

Well, Fed’s not like you. You are the most biased fan ever of Rafa that I’ve ever come across. And I thought that mem’s actually the one who’s mostb trouble accepting Fed, but NO, it’s you! Don’t spew the classless ideas that you’ve gathered of by being a member of RafaelNadal.com coz people there say good things too and I know it pretty much being a member of Rafa’s official website. Believe it or not, I’m a member of the official sites of Fed, Rafa, Murray and also Djokovic and I’m pretty much aware of the venom spewed in those places. And all that you did, unfortunately for you I guess, was that you picked up the bad elements of Rafa’s site as your buddies.

July 7th, 2009 at 3:53 am

NachoF Says:
“sensatiionalsafin,
He doesnt have to… but he simply is”

Completely agree.

July 7th, 2009 at 4:33 am

wow, i never posted here before but i just want to tell von to take it easy. seriously. take a chill pill man. roddick is not THAT good. haha.

July 7th, 2009 at 5:49 am

ART@ 0/6 11.53: hey, there’s a Murray fan here who was cheered by your words, echoed by Pat Cash too! I believe Andy M is the real deal. After his loss against Roddick, apparently he went into the locker room and smashed all his racquets. Good! “Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser!” And, in case anyone should criticise him for that,private showing of grief and anger is OK isn’t it?
SG @4.54: he beats Fed cos a) he thinks he can, b) he’s so fast on court c) his feel for the ball is second only to TMF d) shall I go on??
but sorry, and I’m really sorry about this, his game at the mo. does have a major major weakness, it’s his blooming second serve!

July 7th, 2009 at 7:02 am

Jane – the Times Mirror scribe actually summed up his countryman Andy Murray’s tennis approach/game quite succinctly – sans the ‘Great Champion’ reference – in this article…

“The reality….is that Federer did not win this match so much as Roddick lost it. The best that can be said about Federer is he hung in there. He toughed it out. He stuck around long enough for Roddick to falter.”

July 7th, 2009 at 9:03 am

TejuZ Says:

I know you are a huge Sampras fan … as i remember you very vociferously supporting ‘The Age of No competition’ blog by Sean in 2006… and u must be so damn pissed now, that Fed has overtaken Sampras.

**********

You are correct. I am a Sampras fan. Am I thrilled that Federer surpassed him. Not particularly. But, I do stand by the fact that Federer faced less than stellar competition from 2003 to 2006. Denying this would be the equivalent of saying that Lendl would have the same number of majors if he didn’t play against prime Mac, Connors, Borg, Edberg, Becker and Wilander. Hell, if not for those great players in his era, he may have had 15 or 16 majors. Federer has faltered his fair share when confronted by relevant competition. Sorry if this hurts your feelings but it’s what I believe. In fact, a lot of people in the tennis biz believe it. The fact that you completely dismiss it out of hand just tells me that you are not able to evaluate this objectively. Despite the fact that I like Sampras, I have always stated that Laver is the GOAT. I am not so blinded by my biases that I am unable see reality.

July 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Tejuz,

I’ve also said that if Roger can hold all 4 GS titles at once, he’ll have achieved GOAT status in my eyes.

July 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am

„And yet, Rafa has beaten Fed in a hard court slam final; indeed, in the first one they ever played! And Rafa’s head to head on hard court against Fed is dead even at 3 a piece.

Rafa has beaten Fed in the grass court slam final, too, on his third try. But Fed has never beaten Rafa in the clay court slam final, or semifinal. Never.“

Good points, jane!

July 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am

Federer is the most consistently dominant player of all time or MCOAT as Dan had put it. Beyond that, he has some work left to do if he’s going to convince me that he’s the GOAT. And yes, if Roddick could push Fed to the brink, I am confident that players like prime Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi with games that are more well rounded could have shot him down more than a few times in big moments.

July 7th, 2009 at 10:50 am

Joe W,
That reminds me of Ali’s Rope-a-Dope in the Rumble in the Jungle, against George Foreman; I mean just the last couple games of the match, as the battle came down to who can last longer.

July 7th, 2009 at 11:20 am

grabulasa:

Did you read the whole thread? I hope you did, because you’d see it’s all about a few posters attaching my name to another poster’s posts. Please read before you judge and I mean the whole thread.

I can’t believe I’m still being blamed for posts I didn’t write and were misinterpreted by some posters. OY VEY and LOL.
_____________
huh: why do you take stuff out of context an d become so fixated? You do need to stop you know. No questions, please. I won’t defend you again when next Cindy Brady drops a bomb on you.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

SG: I hope you noticed how someone’s confusion over your posts has now earned me a bad name? LOL. I wonder why the names are at the top of posts?

July 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

huh: why do you take stuff out of context an d become so fixated? You do need to stop you know. No questions, please. I won’t defend you again when next Cindy Brady drops a bomb on you.

Von, see why I quit with him?

July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

vared:

“Von, see why I quit with him?”

Yes, now I can understand why, the kid is extremely stuck, and I mean fixated. He took selective posts from this thread and put them on the current thread. So now people who are just posting on that thread are blaming me for stuff I didn’t do. And, Cindy Brady, who hates me, has added her two cents to that too, so now I’m being scolded by a poster.

Did you read this thread? You’ll laugh if you did, because some posters didn’t even check to see who wrote the posts, they assumed it was me and have lambasted me for another poster’s views on ‘luck’. LOL. OY VEY.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

French Tennis Player Mathieu Montcourt Found Dead

French tennis player Mathieu Montcourt has died. He was 24.

The French tennis federation said on Tuesday that Montcourt had died overnight but that “the causes of his death are not yet known.”

“It is with great sadness that the French tennis federation has learned of the sudden death of Mathieu Montcourt,” the French tennis federation said. “Mathieu was an enthusiastic young man, passionate, very endearing, and extremely appreciated for his kindness and politeness.”

French media earlier reported that Montcourt, ranked 119, was found dead by his girlfriend in the stairwell of his Paris apartment.

July 7th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Von: Heard about that Montcourt’s passing too. I may be way off on this one (hell I probably will!), but I really wonder if it was indeed a sudden death (they allegedly mentioned embolism) or if it had something to do with those betting accusations (i.e. if it was a suicide or someone had taken him out)? ATP, as usual, didn’t mention a thing about it in their report today…

July 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

What a bunch of bulls**t is coming out of Fed haters’ mouth!?!?

Would Rafa have won this Wimbledon had he been 100% healthy, we don’t know. We know, though, that Rafa at his very best (mid 2008) beat Roger at his very worst: 9-7 in the fifth set. Roger is 2-1 against Rafa at Wimby, the rest of the world is 0-18 (2006-08).

When Roger went down, he went down like a King, in a 5-setter, to another great champion. When Rafa went down, he went down like a pussycat, trashed by So-nobody-derling.

July 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

SG

I love the COAT ( or the M-COAT)!

great one!

July 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Skorocel: I don’t know for how long the guy was suspended but that situation had to have a huge impact on his health. He was an athlete and depended on tennis for his livelihood, and that was taken away from him. At 24 the poor guy’s world had collapsed, so did he have much to look forward to? Not really.

“ATP, as usual, didn’t mention a thing about it in their report today…”

Neither on this site. It just goes to show where the emphasis lies, doesn’t it? ‘Show me the money’ — he wasn’t a cash cow so why would ATP care about the passing of one of its players. All ATP has to do is reshuffle the rankings — Next …..

July 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

Von: The ATP actually put a brief story about Montcourt’s passing on their website. What I meant is that they didn’t mention a thing about that betting ban… One word comes to my mind: scapegoat

July 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm