MR

This douchebag is the most smug winner I've ever seen. If I were Roddick I would have sucker punched him right in the jaw....

All this guy has is a serve....douchebag.

Oh please. I wanted Roddick to win but I cannot fault Federer's play. You don't win 15 Grand Slams by only having a serve. Hats off to Federer. Roddick showed tremendous class.

Sadie

sadie65 wrote:Oh please. I wanted Roddick to win but I cannot fault Federer's play. You don't win 15 Grand Slams by only having a serve. Hats off to Federer. Roddick showed tremendous class.

Sadie

I'll repectfully disagree....Roger had 50 aces. Take away even 10 of those and Andy wins this match.

What I fail to understand in tennis is holding serve in the 5th set for 29 games. I mean once the serve is returned it is just another volley. But each guy held for 29 games. Each guy's serve only comes into play when an ace is won, or a point is won directly off the serve. If the serve is returned it becomes just another back and forth volley. I guess there is some psychological thing going on when *you* are serving....

What did he do?

All I know about tennis is that there is a racket in my trunk (since 2007) that remains unused because I still don't know how to play.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

sadie65 wrote:Oh please. I wanted Roddick to win but I cannot fault Federer's play. You don't win 15 Grand Slams by only having a serve. Hats off to Federer. Roddick showed tremendous class.

Sadie

I'll repectfully disagree....

What I fail to understand in tennis is holding serve in the 5th set for 29 games. I mean once the serve is returned it is just another volley. But each guy held for 29 games. Each guy's serve only comes into play when an ace is won, or a point is won directly off the serve. If the serve is returned it becomes just another back and forth volley. I guess there is some psychological thing going on when *you* are serving....

Do you play? Serious question there. I respectfully disagree that it just becomes another back and forth volley. There are so many dynamics to control for either player. This was a well fought game that had far more than just a serve from either player. Yes Roger can be smug. Some people viewed Roddick's response to Roger as poor sportsmanship (not I I might add).

All I am saying is that Federer does indeed have a far better game than just his serve.

Peace

I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

The magnificent Sampras admitted after the match that Federer is the greatest ever.
15 grand slams proves that point and he is still only 27. Federer didn't play great today, but i agree with SM in that Roddick should have won it, and i was gutted for him.
With Nadal not there, it was Roger's chance and he took it, just about. However, i do feel that Federer is not the player he was a few years ago, and if Nadal was there he would have won his second successive Wimbledon title.

StocktontoMalone wrote:This douchebag is the most smug winner I've ever seen. If I were Roddick I would have sucker punched him right in the jaw....

All this guy has is a serve....douchebag.

WTF is Roger Federer and WTF is this thread about? What did he win.... the lottery? A poker tournament?

sadie65 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

I'm no expert in tennis either, but I don't think it is rocket science. Some say this is one of the weakest eras of tennis, and I agree...10-20 years ago players ranked 1-15 had a chance to win a GS, today - only players roughly ranked 1-4 have a decent chance....

I do agree that this era seems weaker than previous eras. And again, I wanted Roddick to win. But I will not say that Federer doesn't have talent in the game. He does. It would be disingenuous. And I will only say that the game is far harder to play and win than people realize. But enough...don't we have more important stuff to talk about...like whether or not Joaquin Phoenix will actually make it as a rapper?

StocktontoMalone wrote:

sadie65 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

I'm no expert in tennis either, but I don't think it is rocket science. Some say this is one of the weakest eras of tennis, and I agree...10-20 years ago players ranked 1-15 had a chance to win a GS, today - only players roughly ranked 1-4 have a decent chance....

I'm a life long player who played at the college and national levels, some things to clear up:

#1: Saying Roger Federer only has a serve is one of the most insane comments I've ever read about any sport. The guy has won 15 grand slams. It truly takes a tennis player or at least a diehard tennis fan to understand the significance of this stat. Not to mention the record for most consecutive weeks at #1, 21 straight slam semis, 6 straight finals, the career slam (winning all 4 during your career - not even Sampras achieved this). He is probably the most complete player, achievements and style wise, to ever play the game.

#2 That being said, Roger definitely didn't have his best stuff today. Roddick outplayed Federer today and if it weren't for the choke in the second set tiebreak, Roger wouldn't be celebrating his record breaking slam. HUGE kudos to Andy Roddick for improving his fitness, adding many more dimension to his game (it's funny, the "only has a serve" comment applied to Roddick more than anyone in the top 10)

#3 In terms of "weak" eras, it's true that there aren't as many guy in the top 30 capable of winning a slam as there was during the 90s. However, the #30 guy now is far better than the average #30 guy 15 years ago and so on and so forth. Even Sampras said this last week in a phone interview. Also, you have to add in the fact that even Sampras was nowhere near the complete player Federer is and nowhere near the grinder that Nadal is. It's a tall order for any player to win a slam in this era when you have the best, most complete player on one side of the draw and probably one of the best and certainly one of the fiercest competitors of all time on the other side. There were some INCREDIBLY WEAK slam winners and finalists back in the day. Aside from all that, it's really kinda kooky to compare eras of a sport that evolves so much over time with racquet technology like tennis. You don't even have to go back 20 years to watch a match and see how slow the ball moved and how much stronger the players of today's era are. It's really a moot point. All things being equal (technology, fitness etc.), you stick the greats of any generation into the same time, they'd all be very good.

#4 Federer is an incredible champion. He was lucky to win that 2nd set, but Roddick gave him an inch with that choked volley and Federer took his mile. You can't blame Fed for Roddick choking a volley an average 12 and under national player would have stuck with force. Then he finds a way to win an epic fifth set in which he's being outplayed and returning horribly against one of the biggest servers ever. That's what a champion does. You could call it luck if this were his first and only title. It's his record breaking fifteenth. It doesn't take a tennis player or even a tennis fan to realize that a champion finds a way to win even when his chips are down. (Puking), just look at this past year's Steelers. Grinder champions who found a way each and every time, right down to the last 2 minutes of their run.

#5 As for not understanding why they are able to hold serve so much: Grass is quick w/ erratic bounces and favors the server making effective returns hard to come by, when you "get the ball back" against big servers like Fed and Rod, you are on the defense immediately, meaning it's not necessarily a neutral situation if the returner finds a way to get the point started, and it's just harder to win the point. Watch how Fed or Rod would poke the serve back in play and immediately be behind the baseline and off his back foot while the other guy took the offense. A huge serve doesn't necessarily mean aces all over the place - it also means an easy setup for a winner or forced error on the 2nd or 3rd shot

I'm a huge Federer fan who wanted to see tennis history made today and I'm glad I got to see it. But huge props to Andy Roddick - I never thought I'd see him in this form again. I hope he can continue to play this well in these last few years of his career and represent American men's tennis well (the future is bleak right now). You can like Federer or dislike him, but your opinion of him personally just doesn't legitimize statements like him only having a serve, him playing in a weak era (he played against many of the greats from the last generation while they were still in the waning days of their prime and has good records against them), or him being lucky. He's the one with 15 slams, Andy's the one with... 1

Is it being suggested that we need to change the rules or lower the bar for Roddick to win? I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Roddick got through the tournament by killing aces. Yet when Federer turns around and gives him a taste of his own medicine, it's not acceptable?

bluejeangirl76 wrote:What did he do?

All I know about tennis is that there is a racket in my trunk (since 2007) that remains unused because I still don't know how to play.

I think there's a net involved & a lot of people 'loving' each other.

Ehwmatt wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:

sadie65 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

I'm no expert in tennis either, but I don't think it is rocket science. Some say this is one of the weakest eras of tennis, and I agree...10-20 years ago players ranked 1-15 had a chance to win a GS, today - only players roughly ranked 1-4 have a decent chance....

I'm a life long player who played at the college and national levels, some things to clear up:

#1: Saying Roger Federer only has a serve is one of the most insane comments I've ever read about any sport. The guy has won 15 grand slams. It truly takes a tennis player or at least a diehard tennis fan to understand the significance of this stat. Not to mention the record for most consecutive weeks at #1, 21 straight slam semis, 6 straight finals, the career slam (winning all 4 during your career - not even Sampras achieved this). He is probably the most complete player, achievements and style wise, to ever play the game.

#2 That being said, Roger definitely didn't have his best stuff today. Roddick outplayed Federer today and if it weren't for the choke in the second set tiebreak, Roger wouldn't be celebrating his record breaking slam. HUGE kudos to Andy Roddick for improving his fitness, adding many more dimension to his game (it's funny, the "only has a serve" comment applied to Roddick more than anyone in the top 10)

#3 In terms of "weak" eras, it's true that there aren't as many guy in the top 30 capable of winning a slam as there was during the 90s. However, the #30 guy now is far better than the average #30 guy 15 years ago and so on and so forth. Even Sampras said this last week in a phone interview. Also, you have to add in the fact that even Sampras was nowhere near the complete player Federer is and nowhere near the grinder that Nadal is. It's a tall order for any player to win a slam in this era when you have the best, most complete player on one side of the draw and probably one of the best and certainly one of the fiercest competitors of all time on the other side. There were some INCREDIBLY WEAK slam winners and finalists back in the day. Aside from all that, it's really kinda kooky to compare eras of a sport that evolves so much over time with racquet technology like tennis. You don't even have to go back 20 years to watch a match and see how slow the ball moved and how much stronger the players of today's era are. It's really a moot point. All things being equal (technology, fitness etc.), you stick the greats of any generation into the same time, they'd all be very good.

#4 Federer is an incredible champion. He was lucky to win that 2nd set, but Roddick gave him an inch with that choked volley and Federer took his mile. You can't blame Fed for Roddick choking a volley an average 12 and under national player would have stuck with force. Then he finds a way to win an epic fifth set in which he's being outplayed and returning horribly against one of the biggest servers ever. That's what a champion does. You could call it luck if this were his first and only title. It's his record breaking fifteenth. It doesn't take a tennis player or even a tennis fan to realize that a champion finds a way to win even when his chips are down. (Puking), just look at this past year's Steelers. Grinder champions who found a way each and every time, right down to the last 2 minutes of their run.

#5 As for not understanding why they are able to hold serve so much: Grass is quick w/ erratic bounces and favors the server making effective returns hard to come by, when you "get the ball back" against big servers like Fed and Rod, you are on the defense immediately, meaning it's not necessarily a neutral situation if the returner finds a way to get the point started, and it's just harder to win the point. Watch how Fed or Rod would poke the serve back in play and immediately be behind the baseline and off his back foot while the other guy took the offense. A huge serve doesn't necessarily mean aces all over the place - it also means an easy setup for a winner or forced error on the 2nd or 3rd shot

I'm a huge Federer fan who wanted to see tennis history made today and I'm glad I got to see it. But huge props to Andy Roddick - I never thought I'd see him in this form again. I hope he can continue to play this well in these last few years of his career and represent American men's tennis well (the future is bleak right now). You can like Federer or dislike him, but your opinion of him personally just doesn't legitimize statements like him only having a serve, him playing in a weak era (he played against many of the greats from the last generation while they were still in the waning days of their prime and has good records against them), or him being lucky. He's the one with 15 slams, Andy's the one with... 1

Ehwmatt,

I didn't want to respond to the ignorance of StocktontoMalone but thank you for your post. I am a huge tennis fans and I'm one of those who would wake up 3AM or 4AM in the morning to watch live Australian open and one who would take a day off to watch a titatnic match. What Roger Federer does is outworldly and just beautiful. Having said that, I was rooting for either player this morning. Roddick played his best tennis yet. He's greatly improved his movement and added more dimension to his game especially his slice and his backhand and also his overall demeanor. It was awesome to watch him beat Hewitt and Murray on the way to the final but unfortunately he faced his nemesis, the great Fed, in the finals. I believe he'll win at least one more major. His wife is hottt!!!

Change4Better wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:

sadie65 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

I'm no expert in tennis either, but I don't think it is rocket science. Some say this is one of the weakest eras of tennis, and I agree...10-20 years ago players ranked 1-15 had a chance to win a GS, today - only players roughly ranked 1-4 have a decent chance....

I'm a life long player who played at the college and national levels, some things to clear up:

#1: Saying Roger Federer only has a serve is one of the most insane comments I've ever read about any sport. The guy has won 15 grand slams. It truly takes a tennis player or at least a diehard tennis fan to understand the significance of this stat. Not to mention the record for most consecutive weeks at #1, 21 straight slam semis, 6 straight finals, the career slam (winning all 4 during your career - not even Sampras achieved this). He is probably the most complete player, achievements and style wise, to ever play the game.

#2 That being said, Roger definitely didn't have his best stuff today. Roddick outplayed Federer today and if it weren't for the choke in the second set tiebreak, Roger wouldn't be celebrating his record breaking slam. HUGE kudos to Andy Roddick for improving his fitness, adding many more dimension to his game (it's funny, the "only has a serve" comment applied to Roddick more than anyone in the top 10)

#3 In terms of "weak" eras, it's true that there aren't as many guy in the top 30 capable of winning a slam as there was during the 90s. However, the #30 guy now is far better than the average #30 guy 15 years ago and so on and so forth. Even Sampras said this last week in a phone interview. Also, you have to add in the fact that even Sampras was nowhere near the complete player Federer is and nowhere near the grinder that Nadal is. It's a tall order for any player to win a slam in this era when you have the best, most complete player on one side of the draw and probably one of the best and certainly one of the fiercest competitors of all time on the other side. There were some INCREDIBLY WEAK slam winners and finalists back in the day. Aside from all that, it's really kinda kooky to compare eras of a sport that evolves so much over time with racquet technology like tennis. You don't even have to go back 20 years to watch a match and see how slow the ball moved and how much stronger the players of today's era are. It's really a moot point. All things being equal (technology, fitness etc.), you stick the greats of any generation into the same time, they'd all be very good.

#4 Federer is an incredible champion. He was lucky to win that 2nd set, but Roddick gave him an inch with that choked volley and Federer took his mile. You can't blame Fed for Roddick choking a volley an average 12 and under national player would have stuck with force. Then he finds a way to win an epic fifth set in which he's being outplayed and returning horribly against one of the biggest servers ever. That's what a champion does. You could call it luck if this were his first and only title. It's his record breaking fifteenth. It doesn't take a tennis player or even a tennis fan to realize that a champion finds a way to win even when his chips are down. (Puking), just look at this past year's Steelers. Grinder champions who found a way each and every time, right down to the last 2 minutes of their run.

#5 As for not understanding why they are able to hold serve so much: Grass is quick w/ erratic bounces and favors the server making effective returns hard to come by, when you "get the ball back" against big servers like Fed and Rod, you are on the defense immediately, meaning it's not necessarily a neutral situation if the returner finds a way to get the point started, and it's just harder to win the point. Watch how Fed or Rod would poke the serve back in play and immediately be behind the baseline and off his back foot while the other guy took the offense. A huge serve doesn't necessarily mean aces all over the place - it also means an easy setup for a winner or forced error on the 2nd or 3rd shot

I'm a huge Federer fan who wanted to see tennis history made today and I'm glad I got to see it. But huge props to Andy Roddick - I never thought I'd see him in this form again. I hope he can continue to play this well in these last few years of his career and represent American men's tennis well (the future is bleak right now). You can like Federer or dislike him, but your opinion of him personally just doesn't legitimize statements like him only having a serve, him playing in a weak era (he played against many of the greats from the last generation while they were still in the waning days of their prime and has good records against them), or him being lucky. He's the one with 15 slams, Andy's the one with... 1

Ehwmatt,

I didn't want to respond to the ignorance of StocktontoMalone but thank you for your post. I am a huge tennis fans and I'm one of those who would wake up 3AM or 4AM in the morning to watch live Australian open and one who would take a day off to watch a titatnic match. What Roger Federer does is outworldly and just beautiful. Having said that, I was rooting for either player this morning. Roddick played his best tennis yet. He's greatly improved his movement and added more dimension to his game especially his slice and his backhand and also his overall demeanor. It was awesome to watch him beat Hewitt and Murray on the way to the final but unfortunately he faced his nemesis, the great Fed, in the finals. I believe he'll win at least one more major. His wife is hottt!!!

No problem, Change. Tennis is a great sport - one you can play for a lifetime. The 1 on 1 element really makes it enjoyable and unique to watch and play. Glad to hear there's another big fan roamin these parts.

Ehwmatt wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:

sadie65 wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:I can officially say Federer is the luckiest man on this planet. He should have lost in 4 sets. Roddick accomplished the most epic choke ever. Who loses a set after leading 6-2 in tie break and serving for the set? Federer should go home and thank god that it actually went to 5 sets. Roddick lost it, Federer did not win.

And as far as your 'Do you play?' question....I don't have to play tennis to understand the game, strategy, and whatnot....Use some logic.(just not Star Wars logic....lol)

I have a question for *you*....What do you think about the war in Iraq? And be careful how you respond. Cause remember, you aren't a politician.

I asked if you played because most who don't play have misconceptions about strategy and such. Since you apparently feel you fully understand the game I'll only say I think you and I saw different games being played. Roddick didn't lose it and hand it to Federer. My opinion of course. You are of course entitled to yours. Federer isn't my favorite player in the sport, but I can show respect for his game. I fully understand you disagree.

Comparing the idea of the war in Iraq to a grand slam tennis game seems a reach, nor would I answer as a politician as that isn't my field of "expertise". I simply disagreed with your assessment (and still do) of the game and it's players. I never intended to insinuate I was an expert. LMAO

I'm no expert in tennis either, but I don't think it is rocket science. Some say this is one of the weakest eras of tennis, and I agree...10-20 years ago players ranked 1-15 had a chance to win a GS, today - only players roughly ranked 1-4 have a decent chance....

I'm a life long player who played at the college and national levels, some things to clear up:

#1: Saying Roger Federer only has a serve is one of the most insane comments I've ever read about any sport. The guy has won 15 grand slams. It truly takes a tennis player or at least a diehard tennis fan to understand the significance of this stat. Not to mention the record for most consecutive weeks at #1, 21 straight slam semis, 6 straight finals, the career slam (winning all 4 during your career - not even Sampras achieved this). He is probably the most complete player, achievements and style wise, to ever play the game.

#2 That being said, Roger definitely didn't have his best stuff today. Roddick outplayed Federer today and if it weren't for the choke in the second set tiebreak, Roger wouldn't be celebrating his record breaking slam. HUGE kudos to Andy Roddick for improving his fitness, adding many more dimension to his game (it's funny, the "only has a serve" comment applied to Roddick more than anyone in the top 10)

#3 In terms of "weak" eras, it's true that there aren't as many guy in the top 30 capable of winning a slam as there was during the 90s. However, the #30 guy now is far better than the average #30 guy 15 years ago and so on and so forth. Even Sampras said this last week in a phone interview. Also, you have to add in the fact that even Sampras was nowhere near the complete player Federer is and nowhere near the grinder that Nadal is. It's a tall order for any player to win a slam in this era when you have the best, most complete player on one side of the draw and probably one of the best and certainly one of the fiercest competitors of all time on the other side. There were some INCREDIBLY WEAK slam winners and finalists back in the day. Aside from all that, it's really kinda kooky to compare eras of a sport that evolves so much over time with racquet technology like tennis. You don't even have to go back 20 years to watch a match and see how slow the ball moved and how much stronger the players of today's era are. It's really a moot point. All things being equal (technology, fitness etc.), you stick the greats of any generation into the same time, they'd all be very good.

#4 Federer is an incredible champion. He was lucky to win that 2nd set, but Roddick gave him an inch with that choked volley and Federer took his mile. You can't blame Fed for Roddick choking a volley an average 12 and under national player would have stuck with force. Then he finds a way to win an epic fifth set in which he's being outplayed and returning horribly against one of the biggest servers ever. That's what a champion does. You could call it luck if this were his first and only title. It's his record breaking fifteenth. It doesn't take a tennis player or even a tennis fan to realize that a champion finds a way to win even when his chips are down. (Puking), just look at this past year's Steelers. Grinder champions who found a way each and every time, right down to the last 2 minutes of their run.

#5 As for not understanding why they are able to hold serve so much: Grass is quick w/ erratic bounces and favors the server making effective returns hard to come by, when you "get the ball back" against big servers like Fed and Rod, you are on the defense immediately, meaning it's not necessarily a neutral situation if the returner finds a way to get the point started, and it's just harder to win the point. Watch how Fed or Rod would poke the serve back in play and immediately be behind the baseline and off his back foot while the other guy took the offense. A huge serve doesn't necessarily mean aces all over the place - it also means an easy setup for a winner or forced error on the 2nd or 3rd shot

I'm a huge Federer fan who wanted to see tennis history made today and I'm glad I got to see it. But huge props to Andy Roddick - I never thought I'd see him in this form again. I hope he can continue to play this well in these last few years of his career and represent American men's tennis well (the future is bleak right now). You can like Federer or dislike him, but your opinion of him personally just doesn't legitimize statements like him only having a serve, him playing in a weak era (he played against many of the greats from the last generation while they were still in the waning days of their prime and has good records against them), or him being lucky. He's the one with 15 slams, Andy's the one with... 1

Huge fan myself, stayed up all night last to watch this match, you are 100% correct. Not only Federer is the only man in history to regain the number 1 spot after he lost it, but he also equaled Agassi's 60 titles stat, also 15 slams to top, on each surface. Federer without a doubt the most complete player to ever play the game. the great Rod Laver said before the match, Roger Federer is the single most important thing in Tennis today... what a match, what a champion. Too good, too good on many levels.

saw the game on tv.
cant forget roddick's face at the end of the match.
he couldnt hide his frustration.

Did Roddick have a match point? If not, then we can't be too sure he would have won it,IMO. That said, Fed had the pressure not Roddick.

When someone reaches a final of a grand slam, they both have pressure. I love tennis. And while I wanted Roddick to win because I root for underdogs, I cannot fault the play by Federer. There was only the one match point. Both men did their jobs. If I were Roddick, I'd have been frustrated as well. I think he did a good job in trying to keep his emotions in check, allowing a little to come to the surface.
Thank you Ehwmatt for better summing up what I could not get across.