This final was really close, but in the end when you take a look at the statistics, Roger def. deserved his win, I mean :

223 points won by Fed, 213 by Rod ; 107 winners for Fed, 74 for Rod. Federer had just 5 unforced errors more than Andy. And of course 50 (!) aces. Roddick didn't outplay Rog, Federer kept him alive with all thoses missed break opportunities, but still : what a fight from Andy.

Yes we can all look at stats and say yes he won because the stats says so.Though we when look at the actual match play sometimes those stats dont always tell the truth in many ways.

My tennis coach regardless if I won or lost a match always showed me the most important stat the Break Point Stat,it showed me how I was really travelling in a match,the amount of b/points I had on my opponent and how many times I broke that opponent.

The stats give a portrait of the match, without the emotions and all the things that go along with. But still : it's pretty clear and we know why Roger won. I mean : 33 winners more for Fed.....

Fred Of course I am in no way or shape or form disputing Rogers win,gee his clutch serve in the later parts of that match was outstanding to say the least,50 aces wow.

It's OK Aussiemarg, I was just a bit shocked by the word "outplayed" used by some people here. Still Andy surprised me with some really unexpected shots coming from him. He proved he's not only a good server.

I feel sad for andy. I hope he has his Goran moment.

Having said that i wonder would have happened to Federer had he lost this thing. I mean considering what happened last year and what happened at Melbourne. It was very important for him to win this thing to silence his critics who would have been all over him had he lost. Had he lost this he would have been an emotional wreck and the memories of all these painful finals would have been a huge psychological blow. Therefore it was very important for him to win this thing and move on......now he has nothing left to prove........he is free to swing from the hip and play without any pressure what so ever….All in all this win would go a long way in helping Federer win many more Grand slams.

Here are ten reasons/things which I fell were instrumental in helping him win this:

a) Tremendous Self Belief
b) Patience and perseverance
c) Experience of being in so many finals
d) Motivation
e) Fitness
f) 1st Serve
g) Mirka
h) 18-2 record over roddick
i) Luck
j) My prayers lol

I feel sad for andy. I hope he has his Goran moment.

Having said that i wonder would have happened to Federer had he lost this thing. I mean considering what happened last year and what happened at Melbourne. It was very important for him to win this thing to silence his critics who would have been all over him had he lost. Had he lost this he would have been an emotional wreck and the memories of all these painful finals would have been a huge psychological blow. Therefore it was very important for him to win this thing and move on......now he has nothing left to prove........he is free to swing from the hip and play without any pressure what so ever….All in all this win would go a long way in helping Federer win many more Grand slams.

Here are ten reasons/things which I fell were instrumental in helping him win this:

a) Tremendous Self Belief
b) Patience and perseverance
c) Experience of being in so many finals
d) Motivation
e) Fitness
f) 1st Serve
g) Mirka
h) 18-2 record over roddick
i) Luck
j) My prayers lol

I feel sad for andy. I hope he has his Goran moment.

Having said that i wonder would have happened to Federer had he lost this thing. I mean considering what happened last year and what happened at Melbourne. It was very important for him to win this thing to silence his critics who would have been all over him had he lost. Had he lost this he would have been an emotional wreck and the memories of all these painful finals would have been a huge psychological blow. Therefore it was very important for him to win this thing and move on......now he has nothing left to prove........he is free to swing from the hip and play without any pressure what so ever….All in all this win would go a long way in helping Federer win many more Grand slams.

Here are ten reasons/things which I fell were instrumental in helping him win this:

a) Tremendous Self Belief
b) Patience and perseverance
c) Experience of being in so many finals
d) Motivation
e) Fitness
f) 1st Serve
g) Mirka
h) 18-2 record over roddick
i) Luck
j) My prayers lol

"27 is but an assertion that he is still the best player around, and yet a promising path of tournaments and slams to chase and convince the world that never for a minute will he be resting on his laurels.

So, could he be the greatest to ever play the sport?

He is all but anointed, but he doesn't need to be -- Roger Federer's in a class all his own."

---
For more, do read my latest Federer article on

Sportales: "Sublime: Roger Federer's Master Class" http://sportales.com/tennis/sublime-roger-federers-master-class/

CONGRATS ROG!!!

Sam Prayers for us fans in tennis urging their fav player is the single most important weapon we have period.

CL @ 10.37 - they plough up the centre court every year after the finals. Traditionally Court 1 was kept for summer Davis Cup ties. So Wimbledon are doing nothing new. I agree though the court seems to have been too dry - but looking at vintage footage that too is nothing new.

well, i wanna say that Andy is a hero because he played very nice yesterday. i dont believe what happen yesrerday, that was a great. it is true that Andy didi not win, but according to me , he was the hero and he win. hope so he will achieve it next year if Nadal will not make it.

I mostly just lurk here nowadays - Fedal wars and spiteful comments (although less than a lot of forums) have soured me from posting.

But I had to say something. I cannot believe that anyone is making a big deal of what were very inoffensive post match comments. It almost makes me angry. It really is looking for a negative where none exists for the sake of argument (with all due respect to any of the posters). I felt the same after the AO when there were comments in forums (and some members of the press) that Rafa's kindness and niceness to Roger were what set him off crying - almost implying that Rafa was being patronising and trying to make Fed feel worse - RUBBISH of course. This also is rubbish (again with all due respect). I await the Roddick is a sore loser caustic posts - which will also be rubbish.

These guys play their heart, bodies and souls out and then have a microphone stuck in their faces and have to suddenly become masters of spin. Why is this such an obcession these days - it never was in the past - players just said what they wanted and it was a lot more entertaining and honest. Of course, on some occasions a players response deserves criticism - this is honestly not one of them for either player.

Posted by curious 07/06/2009 @ 12:35 AM

Tim-No.You didn't read my post. Your post is about grandslam performances. Nadal leads Federer 13:7.

=======================
Nadal head-to-head with Federer will be relevant in G.O.A.T context when and if Nadal wins close to Federer number of Slams. Until then it is just a trivia question.

Somehow Fed was expected to always win easily. When Rafa won against FVerdasco (or Nole), it was a show case of fighting spirit and all those sports cliche. Now Andy is a winner...per some of the posters here? Funny. Roger has a better serve than anybody but doesn't want to be branded as the guy with just the devastating serve. He pulls it out when pushed. And he did today.

Like Pspace and/or others pointed, if only in the 7th and 9th game of the first set, when Fed pushed (which he normally does) and went for it, those hard earned break points, and if only that FH landed either an inch favorably...we wouldn't be talking about any of these. Would have been straights and that's that. Funny game.

Bodo bias?

I have read several comments on Peter Bodo being anti Federer. That is an outrageous suggestion. I think Bodo, from what I have read over the years, and not just here is naturally pro American and writes from that perspective. Just like a British commentator is naturally pro British or European. Bodo has consistently praised Federer. Perhaps there has been too much of the working class hero subtext in his writings, but again that is not anti Federer or anyone else. We all bring our natural bias and background to bear on whatever we write, but that does not mean prejudice is present. Bodo regards Pete Sampras as the greatest player he has seen, as does Flink (who also has been accused of anti Federer prejudice). That is a legitimate opinion. Personally I regard Laver as the GOAT. Also Budge must be in the running, along with Tilden, Perry, Gonzalez, Kramer and many more. Federer is certainly in the mix as one of the GOATs but it is impossible to compare eras that are too far apart. What is certain is that a young Federer not yet at his peak and a Sampras just past his peak played a five setter of the highest quality which in my book makes them equals with Federer having a better record but Sampras having endured greater depth of opposition at the highest level over his career. Don't forget Borg who has the best won /lost record in slams of all time.

I don't see any hard evidence of "Sampras having endured greater depth of opposition at the highest level over his career".
Why? Because Bud Collins said so? Not good enough.

md @ 5:59 AM, well said. Good to see a level-headed comment amongst the vacuities. Brace yourself for the whining from KADs, though.

Heh, guess my warning was a few minutes late.

NP Your timing was a little amiss.

Mea culpa, AM. Unfortunately I have many better things to do.

All I can say is Rog seemed to be pulling aces out of his butt, I knew toward the end that his serve seemed unbreakable. Honestly, I dont see how Rafa could have won Wimbledon again, there is no real way of knowing but I do know that Rog was playing much better than he was last year and I believe that A Rod gave more of a battle that Rafa would have. It was so obvious how bad Andy wanted this and so I feel bad, everything seems to be going Rogs way right now. But I do remember Rog in a much similar position to Andy last year, I can forsee a role reversal for him in the future. I hope Andy Roddick will win his Wimbledon title somenday (but never Andy Murray he is a classless individual who seems to have beef with a lot of other players). Good Luck A Rod to the future!

Excuse me, Kitty Mac 5:34, what do you propose we discuss here? I think you should post more often to eliminate these so called febal wars (like the one I an initiating now)! I happen to think the topics discussed here and arguments posed are completely valid.

I cried a river for two things:
1. I wanted Andy Roddick to win after his fine display of tennis. I am not a fan of his tennis but last night I suddenly found myself giving him kudos. He was never broken - and save all breakpoints he faced - until that fateful last game! That was an achievement in itself against Federer. I was so devastated that I could not understand how can the tennis gods be this cruel. Roddick played like a true champion and he deserved the win.
2. I watched history made last night. I could proudly tell the story to the next generation that I was there when number 14 became number 15!

I am watching the match now with Becker commentating as I couldn't watch it last night.

Congrats to Roger and his fans especialy Beckham, I hope you didn't frazzle too much and of course massive commies to ARod and his fans.

Oh Yeah I was 1 of 16 people to win Suicide Pool which makes me a medal winner.

"Excuse me, Kitty Mac 5:34, what do you propose we discuss here? I think you should post more often to eliminate these so called febal wars (like the one I an initiating now)! I happen to think the topics discussed here and arguments posed are completely valid."

Apologies if my knee jerk reaction offended you. I completely respect your response to it. If my comment appeared sharp then your sharp response was perfectly valid, as was my original post.

GOAT discussions, apart from being pointless if one is comparing across eras, are particularly inane when no one is prepared to state up front what criteria are being used. Instead, "fans" trot out their favoured candidate and then select stats to bolster their case. For instance, Borg's win/loss Slam record looks less impressive when one realises he only attempted the AO once and failed on 10 occasions at the USO.

What is undeniable is that Federer currently has the best record of career achievement in the Open era, as recognised by the other possible contenders, such as Sampras and Agassi, and every sensible commentator.

To win grand slam U HAVE to beat FEDERARISM.... otherwise u r on sorry side.... Congs FEDY

Why did so many posters portray Nadal's comments at the AO trophy presentation when addressing Federer as being kind, giving and sensitive to his opponent's discomfort - and took the exact opposite stance concerning very similar comments by Federer to Roddick yesterday?

It always amazes me how observations are colored so dramatically by personal preferences, prejudices, and personal desires.

andy roddick's got my sympathies, he played brilliant and deserved the title. why does federer always have to win? can't anyone stop him? i don't get it, there are thousands of great players out there.
and really, how much longer do players have to keep up with each others by winning their service game?? change the rules.

I think an argument could be made for Fernando Vicente as the real GOAT. This is based on the fact that he has had a viable professional tennis career despite possessing the weakest backhand imaginable.

The first time I watched him play, I couldn't figure out why he kept trying to hit a backhand dropshot over and over every time...then I realized he wasn't trying to hit dropshots, that was as deep as he could hit it.

To function in the face of this extreme liability the rest of his game must have been incomparable, especially his mental fortitude.

Plus you can throw in the fact that he won 2.8 million dollars despite never reaching the final in a tournament other than on clay.

So for overcoming these handicaps and still making a decent run of it, I think it is obvious you have to put Vicente in the GOAT debate.

i have been a fan of both federer and roddick for a very long time.
Roddick put up a monumental fight and really was the better player in this match. As roddick pointed out, roger's serve is what made the tiny difference.

I was really upset with roger's comment to andy during the trophy presentation when he told andy that he "shouldn't be sad because he lost one as well a year ago"! I think that was so inappropriate and insulting and I commend Roddick for his controlled response "Well, you already had won 5 of them". Even though I want to believe that Roger didn't mean it as insulting as it came across, it did spoil the moment for me and will leave a bad taste in my mouth for a very long time...

Roddick on Twitter:

"""
thanks for all the support and well wishes!! it is very much appreciated and we will get out there and do it again soon! thank you!!!
"""

http://twitter.com/andyroddick

Go Andy! What a stand up guy!

Salute to Roddick, Ex-Fedfam, and everyone else on Federer's post-match comments-

If you're going to interprete Federer's comments so negatively, one could *also* argue that Roddick can't come close to knowing how hurt Federer felt last year. Roddick didn't fall from as high as Federer did.

But why be petty? I thought both players played out of their minds tennis, then came down to earth to prove themselves decent human beings as well.

This line of Roddick "deserved to win" or "was the better player in this match" is simply arrant nonsense based on adolescent emotion rather than tennis (which is presumably why Peter @ 7:42 AM wants to change the rules in some unspecified way!)

salute to roddick - I must admit I didn't take Roger's comment that way at all any more than Roddick's response as a comment from a sore loser - and was quite shocked that anyone did - but like has been said a few posts above - it's often people's perceptions at the time, and I stand educated. Obviously there are different perceptions and worldviews to mine - "horses for courses" and all that!

PS. I didn't like the "15" top - but I don't think Roger did either - but if players will sell their souls to their sponsors!

My tennis appreciation life began in a very different era where there was not the same pressure to give perfect PR spin and soundbites and I have sympathy for all today's players - I think it takes away from the natural rawness of the sport. It doesn't surprise me that some of the younger players give the appearance of pre-coached mantras to the press to protect themselves - because not matter what they say - it's going to be wrong and debated as such.

Fed's quotes the morning after. Of course, I'm sure these will be controversial as well ;-).

"""
Federer acknowledged his celebrations were somewhat reserved after a marathon 30-game final set but this was partly out of respect for an opponent he has now beaten three times in Wimbledon finals.

"It was a combination of being maybe a little bit sad for Andy after seeing Rafa was sad for me at Wimbledon last year," he explained.

"I felt like it was such a gruelling match, everybody was tired and felt for Andy so I didn't want to make a drama about it but I knew the importance and that it was one of the greatest moments in my tennis career.

"Of course I always feel people should be happy for the guy who won and not for the guy who lost.

"I just kept it together after being so close to victory for so long, it was just a big explosion, and then after that it was all over and it sunk in and took me a while."
"""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8136192.stm

NP 6:29, 6:31 – instead of discussing the issue in hand you resort to the language as “brace yourself for whining from KADs”. Your choice…

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!

Pete, you're comparing a couple of loose points in that second set tiebreaker to the Battle of 1816? The sad part is that you're old enough to have seen it, if not to actually remember it.

And Pete, no, there's nothing wrong with Federer that the absence of He Who Shall Not Be Named cannot fix. A healthy Nadal wins Paris easily, destroys either of these guys in the Wimbledon final, and we're talking grand slam coming into the Open.

I love and appreciate Federer, but it's hard to be GOAT when you can't beat your main rival--13-7 overall, and 6-2 including three straight on three different surfaces, in Grand Slams.

Andy Roddick to miss Davis Cup this weekend:

http://tinyurl.com/q2p2w7

"Fed's quotes the morning after. Of course, I'm sure these will be controversial as well ;-). "

Awk - I'm sure they will be - pre and post match quote critique is fast becoming more important than the sport itself on the internet - but I'm just becoming a grumpy old woman moaning about the behaviour of the young and distraction conspiracies!!

I do wonder what tennis fans today would have made of Connors, McEnroe and Lendl and their contemporaries - never mind the likes of Mohammed Ali.

But peace to all and a good summer - the American hardcourt season will be upon us soon and battle will commence again no doubt.

"instead of discussing the issue in hand you resort to the language as 'brace yourself for whining from KADs'. Your choice…"

Sez the poster who apparently thinks dismissing a legitimate point as one of the pontifications by the allegedly anti-Fed Bud Collins is "discussing the issue at hand." My choice indeed.

I always pull for Roddick to win, especially in these matches with Federer. And he really did have a great tournament, and it's great to see him forging a bit of a career resurgence. I see no reason why he can't keep racking up wins.

That said, though, I was still critical of Roddick's tactics at times in this match. Many times, Roddick chose to hit an approach absolutely perfectly positioned...for Federer to counter. I just don't understand why Roddick does this. Yes, it's one thing if you can handcuff a guy with an approach into the body, or the feet, but over and over again I watched Roddick hit an approach that provided Federer comfortable options to counter.

And, far to often, Roddick chose to rally balls back to Federer instead of away from Federer; many times this took the form of Roddick choosing not to hit the backhand up the line, a shot that he's had strong success with this tournament. He should've used it more often against Federer in situations when Federer was on the other side of the court, to press Federer out of position.

And as strongly as Roddick served throughout the match, I could see Federer returning more first serves as the match wore on. Roddick needed to mix it up a little more; not too many body serves in a row when the service T is wide open for a try.

And the intangibles. Championship mettle. 4 set points for a two sets to love lead. Roddick had 2 of those points on his serve...and missed both of those first serves.

Re: Melville-Read 07/06/2009 @ 8:42 AM

Being present is part of the deal.

KittyMac, I think CL has described this as a weak era jerk-wise. So, instead of having real things to complain about, it's tears at a trophy ceremony, pressers, shorts pulling between points, and so on. Too much information. Anyways, if this is the worst thing you can say about a guy that's subject to so much scrutiny, he's done pretty well in my book. I wouldn't hold up that well ;-).

Consider Federer's French Open championship mettle in the critical 2nd set tiebreaker against Soderling. If Federer loses that set, who knows what might happen. But Federer served 4 aces, a singular performance of tennis greatness, that tiebreak.

For Roddick, with 2 of 4 set points on his own serve, in the 2nd set tiebreak on Sunday, he missed both first serves.

For me, that private letdown somewhere inside of Roddick was the biggest difference in the match.

"And Pete, no, there's nothing wrong with Federer that the absence of He Who Shall Not Be Named cannot fix. A healthy Nadal wins Paris easily, destroys either of these guys in the Wimbledon final, and we're talking grand slam coming into the Open."

Trying to figure out whether you're being sarcastic, or not ... you can't honestly be serious. Sounds more like wishful thinking for an over the top RafaKAD. The only way your assumption would hold even a drop of water is if all tournaments were held on clay.

And you wonder why we have Fedal Wars here, KM?

This touting the horn of winning head-to-head is getting tiresome.
Again: Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. At 28 he is SUPPOSED to lose to 23 yo Nadal. Don’t you realize, that constant bringing of this h2h looks like an attempt to claim greatness by association?

NP 07/06/2009 @ 8:45 AM

Did I dismiss it? Give me something substantial, other than opinion of Bud Collins, and I'll gladly discuss it.

Andy definetely should have won yesterday, no one on the whole ATP tour deserves to win wimbledon more than he does and after the way hes played these last two weeks it shows hes in the form of his life and also that he can beat the best and still be a contender for any title.

Andy looked distraught after the match but im sure he'll have even more confidence going into the US Open knowing that when he follows his game plan and keeps focused he can get hmself into Grand Slam finals and also knowing that he could have won yesterday(because that last set could have been anyones) just shows that hes got what it takes to beat anyone.

Congrats to Federer but keep up the amazing form Andy! xx

Fed, @ 4:25 etc.,

Yes, the stats give a portrait. It's no use telling some of these folks, they just want to believe want they want to believe and no amount of stats or even expert opinion can convince them otherwise. Sad and stupid, but that's the way it is.

mick1303, I learned a long time ago that it's pointless trying to discuss this with a Fed fan/KAD/groupie/whatnot. If you don't see how the '90s had more great and near-great players than the '00s then we're just gonna have to disagree.

But let's look at the Fed-Rafa H2H issue, 'cause this is something that can be discussed better within a limited context. IIRC you once said you don't care whether Rafa had a 20-0 H2H against Fed. Do you still stand by that?

mick1303, A normal 28 year old player is supposed to lose to a 23 year old...or somethin' like that. But, not the "undisputed" GOAT. Ultimately, there's no real metric you can give for ranking GOATs. They all bring their numbers to the table, and all have knocks against them:

a) Laver - Depth of competition was not what it is. What's a 31 year old guy doing winning a calendar GS?

b) Borg - Connors didn't play in RG. Retired too early.

c) Sampras - Didn't win RG

d) Federer - Losing H2H with Nadal.

Which of these "knocks" would you consider the least? One could make an argument for any of them. My personal choice is Fed. But, that's more for stylistic reasons. I don't think it needs to be unanimous.

The problem with all the GOAT arguments is the amount of "ifs".

If Nadal had not had knee problems would Federer have reached 14 and 15? We won't know because Rafa did.

Would Samphras have reached 15 at all if Andre Agassi had kept his head together throughout his career and been more of a consistent rival? We won't know because Andre didn't.

Would Lendl have been so successful later in his career if McEnroe had not gone on mental and emotional walkabout? We won't know because John did.

Would McEnroe have been as successful as he was if Borg had not quit. We won't know, because Bjorn did.

All those points are valid and all to a certain degree can dull the brightness of any of the candidates for GOAT. All the great players have arguments for and against their greatness. It's easy now as a result of hype and re-writing history to forget (or just not even know) the day to day struggles and realities of players in the past. There are negative comments made about Federer's GOATness - some are fair some are not, but there are also arguments that can be made about all the players involved in the GOAT debate.

The whole debate is a bit of press hype generated fun. It creates a buzz and gives the sport a bit of extra attention. We all think our favourite is the GOAT, but they are probably not (despite what we believe in our most KADish moments).

I like to think of it more as an exclusive club than a single title. It was pretty special to see so many of the greats of tennis over so many eras at Wimbledon yesterday. Federer joined the club yesterday - but he won't be the last. Records are made to be broken.

It is obvious Federer was too good. The reason why I am saying this is, here is a player who has played consistently for such a long time, appeared at an incredible number of finals of major tournaments and won most of them. Yes, Nadal did have his number. But tournaments and a lifetime achievements are not a matter of individual matchups. It is about the overall play quality spread over a period of time, venues, opponents and conditions. When you consider that in totality, Federer has won matches under most of those combined conditions, and lost a few. He has been held to such a high standard, that those few failures prompted scathing criticism of his game. Sampras also went through it.
.
It has been extremely rare that he lost in early rounds. You cannot say that of other players however close they are to Federer.
.
Greatness, luck, or not, you cannot blow a 6-2 lead at this level of the game and that too against Federer. But it happened, and it did not happen to Federer. Whether it would have made a difference, I don't know. But it would have given Roddick a better chance, a "more" confident chance.
.
In the end, it broke my heart to see either of these player's lose. Both are great sportsmen, both are humble considering their achievements in the field of tennis.
.
Tennis is in great shape, thanks to these two players.

One more time ... yes, Rafa clearly upped the ante against Fed at last years FO and Wimby, and this years AO. But the reason that their H2H is so one sided is that Rafa is incredibly good on clay, but has not historically been good on HC and grass until recent.

He beat Fed on clay because Fed made the final for him to beat ... they could only meet in the finals, being #1 and #2 ... Rafa couldn't consistently make it to the finals for Fed to have a chance to beat him back. Fed made it to the finals, and beat the players that beat Rafa ... which is why Fed was #1 for over 5 years, and has 15 GS titles.

Is Rafa, when healthy, the best player in Tennis today? I'd say yes, but don't be misinformed by simple H2H ... it's closer than most RafaKADS would like to believe.

Emma, Andy had the match in his hands in the 2nd-set TB, and blew it. Tennis, especially on grass, comes down to a small number of big points, and Andy showed yesterday why he's only a near tennis great. Federer deserved to win, whether or not Andy played better for the most part of the match.

Love hearing about FedKADS, this and that ... so comical, as the RafaKADS, SamprasKADS, ad nauseum come off the same when defending their faves. Always get a kick at the FedKAD evaluation by KADs of others.

Pspace, I think we should distinguish between personal and "objective" GOAT. My personal GOAT is Pete, 'cause I still think he played the highest level of tennis ever, but I must say Laver is a notch above him due to Pete's relatively poor clay records. I remember you and a few others bickering over whether beauty is a valid metric for the GOAT ranking. I'd say it is indeed valid in ranking personal GOATs, but not objective ones.

Any French speakers on the board? If so, please translate. Article is saying Roger has withdrawn from Montreal.

http://tinyurl.com/m5zqda

Except Any did not play better for most of the match. Look at the stats. Federer should have won in straight sets, but he blew the first set and then blew the 4th. So, woulda, shoulda, from either side doesn't cut it.

Here's one for you ... if Fed sucked on clay, and never made it past the semis in any clay tourney ... he'd have 1 less GS, and an even head to head with Rafa! LOL

Off Topic:

Will there be a Monday Net Post from Ed or Your Call from Monday as Typepad has slowed up on the Overflow from Sunday and this is an on topic post discussing Roger 15th Slam?

Hi everyone

Now that the water seem to cool down, can anyone tell me: is this the most uneven h2h in male tennis history? Any similar rivalry? The famous and often quoted Connors-Gerulaitis ended up in 15-6, surprisingly.

MA, I'm sure there will be a new MNP up later today. After all we're talking about Ed.

Icarus, you mean between great players? Not sure Gerulaitis qualifies. The Borg-Connors H2H is pretty one-sided, 2 (15-8.

Even many Fed KADs around here said Andy played better in the 1st 4 sets. It wasn't until the 5th that Fed started to serve more aces and Roddick's serve began to lose its luster. It shouldn't be too hard to understand that not all "woulda, shoulda" points are the same.

I mean all players, because it seems to me Roddick is beginning to make history in that category.

But yes, it's more interesting the h2h among top players.

M.A., I thought this was an interesting quote from the DC article you linked:

"It's worse for us," Goran Prpic, Croatia's Davis Cup captain, said in Porec. "Instead of an injured Roddick, who after such a final at Wimbledon would have had to play matches on clay, we'll have to face a motivated Fish."

Fish has had a good year. I am sure he will be geared up to play.

New tournament starts today; grass season isn't over. Naturally we're all going to be VERY excited by the 1st Round tie between Nicolas Mahut and Amer Delic.

Well, I am, at least.

A 6-2 lead is never a guarantee against TMF (and I am certified RafaKad/RAndyKad). TMF takes the addage "it's never over 'til it's over" to another level.

Well, Icarus, with all due respect to Master Ace, I doubt even he is that knowledgeable. :) Maybe Bud Collins.

Anyway I can't think of any other H2H between top players that is as one-sided. Sampras-Rafter is 12-4, but not even the biggest Rafter KAD would argue Pat belongs up there.

15-8 routs from Borg to Connors is pretty amazing. But, frankly, it reminds me another rivalry of these days, with a supposed GOAT.

For once, I've to agree with the annoying Mr. Wilander: If you want to see the big picture, Federer's glory path doesn't end up here - he must win some more important matches against Nadal.

I don't mean to turn around, h2h, just to make a bit more even. It doesn't make sense that a player like Federer is broken down so continuously by one player. Murray is making that Fed's glory photo not look so nice.

OMG...UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE....I am not even going to read through the comments because I do not have the patience or the time for any unfreakingbelievableness...I don't know whether to be sad that I missed the Fs or be happy that I didn't sit through a 16-14 5th set?!

Random thoughts...

1. Wohoo Roger Freaking Federer, GS 15...to hail with the haters man, your unfreakingbelievable...to hail with the lot of them...wohooo!!!
2. Dude, I know I said you can do whatever the hail you want, but 16-14?! Dude, seriously WTF?!
3. Fed KADS JSN, your man has 15 GS...what do you care what people think?!
4. Is there anyway to ensure that Andy gets a Wimbledon trophy?! I'm open to any AND all ideas..
5. Losing to the same guy in 1 SF and 3 F's of the same tournament is cruel and unusual punishment, funny enough the only guy that can relate is Roger Federer!!!
6. Darn you Serena, I hold Lena personally responsible for this, someone please take Rena out at the USO, anyone, anyone?!
7. What in the world happened to Lestat?!
8. Where can I get a #15 jacket?!
9. Commisserations to all the Randy fans out there, it sucks feel free to rant and rave, I understand, I was crushed this time last year!!!
10. Congratulations to all my fellow the Fed fans...wohoo...who would have thunk it?! After the debacle at Oz?! After the disaster that was IW? After the shambolicness and complete meltdown in Miami?! After the ridiculousness at MC?! After the even more ridiculousness of Rome?!

Just UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!!! Allez...onwards and upwards and all that!!!

*off in search of Gulbis*

My position on h2h – it has very limited application to the discussion of greatness. It shall be considered if there is a virtual parity in career accomplishments. For instance I think h2h shall be taken into account in Lendl-Agassi comparison. But only as a secondary qualifier.
My opinion that the most important stats to compare careers shall be Number of majors, number of total tournaments won, win-loss ratio, number of weeks at #1 etc. H2H brings unnecessary subjectivity. You can always bring another h2h etc. They depend heavily on context. For instance Mac was never good enough to play Borg on clay – he was losing early. So his h2h against Borg looks respectably.
The fact that Federer played Nadal so many times is historical aberration, because Nadal is an early bloomer, while Federer stuck at top longer than usual. Nadal has advantage of studying Fed and honing his game specifically to beat him, while he himself was still developing.

While people are saying they don't want to put an asterisk(*) on the win, I hear many of the commentators trying to do just that. Laver did not have the chance to play majors; Rafa wasn't there; Rogers competition was not great. While they nick-pick his accomplishment, I hope they also appreciate Federer's true greatness,his talent and his amazing consistency.

We talk continually about guys coming up to challenge Federer but Federer is always there. Just as Roddick remarked about his own play, Federer always seems to give himself a chance to win. It seems it is only his opponent that changes. There are players who have great records against him but Federer remainis relatively cool under the fire and just goes about his business (racket breaking incident aside). He does not win every time and some of the matchups are difficult for him but that is what makes sport so compelling. What is it now, 17 out of the last 18 grandslam finals have Federer in them?

Hey, I might be totally off here but is Federer also the only male tennis player to lost the #1 ranking and then get it back? Just another reason to give this guy his due! Remember, we also did not appreciate Pete as much as we should have during his day either. Shame on us!!!!

just curious: who was the strong opposition during the nineties apart from agassi? courier? maybe 93-94, althought he had a very bad record against sampras? edberg, becker? not anymore. chang, ivanisevic, rafter, korda? not at all. pioline, bruguera, rios and likewise? you cant be serious. apart from sampras i can only see one great player: agassi. sorry bud.

Regarding 90-vs 00. First – you just can’t help yourself to avoid labeling you opponent in discussion. “fan/KAD/groupie/whatnot” – was it really necessary?
Second – 90s were not a single point in time. Do you consider Edberg and Becker players of 90s? IMO they were better in 80s, while 90s were the time of their slow decline. So just to state that Sampras competed against Edberg and Becker (some people even have audacity to add Lendl) for me is to distort the reality.

jallenuga:

«Hey, I might be totally off here but is Federer also the only male tennis player to lost the #1 ranking and then get it back? Just another reason to give this guy his due!»

This is not true.

"mick1303, A normal 28 year old player is supposed to lose to a 23 year old...or somethin' like that. But, not the "undisputed" GOAT. Ultimately, there's no real metric you can give for ranking GOATs. They all bring their numbers to the table, and all have knocks against them:

a) Laver - Depth of competition was not what it is. What's a 31 year old guy doing winning a calendar GS?

b) Borg - Connors didn't play in RG. Retired too early.

c) Sampras - Didn't win RG

d) Federer - Losing H2H with Nadal.

Which of these "knocks" would you consider the least? One could make an argument for any of them. My personal choice is Fed. But, that's more for stylistic reasons. I don't think it needs to be unanimous."

pspace:

You make good arguments. Also:

Laver - AO used to be played at end of December (Christmas/Holidays) and many players did not make the trip down under. Therefore an Aussie in the old days had the advantage of being able to win the AO more often and therefore the calendar year slam. Still I think only Graf has done it since the AO had been moved to January.

Borg - played RG, but hardly ever made the trip down under. However, three years in a row won RG/Wimbledon - I think this will be a long standing record and makes a good case for GOAT.

Connors - while a great champion don't think he is in the GOAT picture.

Sampras - still won 7 Wimbledon's. Let see if Federer can equal or better this. Still think Borg's accomplishment of 5 straight Wimbledon's and three years of RG/Wimbledon wins with 6 total RG trumps Sampras, plus Borg retired very early and probably would have won a few more slams.

Federer - still agree he must beat Nadal more and on clay to be considered the GOAT.

Plus - Nadal is not done. He may trump them all.

Fed should wear the tasteless Nike 'Sweatshop' jacket for the USO

NP, I've sort of given up on the "objective" GOAT. Even excluding Federer, I'm not that sure about Laver over Sampras. Laver's calendar GS deserve huge props, but c'mon, his main rival on clay couldn't even hit a topspin backhand. Look at what Pete had to go through to even get to an SF. The increases in prize money, and the structure of the tour have made it deeper as the years have gone by. But, yeah, I won't fight over Laver as the "objective" GOAT. Calendar GS is waaaay up there in the stratosphere.

mick1303,

1) I said "fan" before I added the other labels. You think "fan" is a pejorative label? Mm-kay.

2) As I've said many times before, you shouldn't judge the competition based on eras. What matters is whether the player was a Slam contender. Edberg was clearly a Slam contender until '93. Guess who knocked down Pete in two consecutive Slams? As for Becker, he and Pete ruled the indoor seasons until '96. Remember the '96 YEC final? And Boris was consistent in SW19 for most of the early '90s: QF in '92, SFs in '93 and '94, and final in '95. He was in fact a favorite to win Wimby '96, but had to pull out in 3R due to a wrist injury. Sorry, but Becker was clearly a factor well into the '90s.

Dear all,

I had been roaming different sites over the last months to find out about the variety of opinions on tennis matches. This is by far the most interesting and informative I have seen. I have been watching tennis intensely for many years, just love the game, and really appreciate seeing so many people who enjoy beautiful tennis. Most of you avoid getting caught up in partisan fights (there are a few exceptions, but that's life). It was an amazing final, we are privileged to have seen such amazing wimby finals recently.

Guys

A dime for the first who can find a worst h2h case than Rod-Fed. Just male players in the contest.

I'm off to follow rugby for a while. slates.

Pspace, but that's how they all used to hit the BH. Let's not forget that many commies consider Rosewall to have had the best BH ever. Surely you don't think he wouldn't have been able to adjust given today's equipment? And of course even trying to determine the one "objective" GOAT is a mug's game. It should be a fun game, but some fanatics take it way too personally. Just look at this thread.

Speaking of Becker-Edberg, their H2H is 25-10 and they turned pro within a year of each other. What does that tell you? Not much.

Feely bad for Roddick. Hope this spurs him on to throw a money wrench into expectations for the USO.

Also, Roddick should shortly rise to #5. Don't think Del potro will defend all his points this summer. Roddick is only 265 behind Del Poto now and Del Potro will lose 280 next week so Andy should rise to #4. Let see if he can make to to #4 by USO, which would help to at least avoid Fed/Nadal until semis.

On the WTA side:

Oudin rises to 70 from 124 on the back of her surprise Wimbledon results. Viadisova drops to 143. Will not make USO unless she get a WC or qualifies. What a waste. Glatch is 106 which should get her in the USO.

And the tennis goes on this day on a small scale.

Cibulkova playing in Sweden. If she get to the SF, she will replace Ivanovic at #11. If she get to the final she enters the top 10 at 10 knocking out Petrova. This would put the three young guns at 8, 9 & 10 Azarenka, Wozniacki and Cibulkova respectively. Given her draw Cibulkova should make the final at least where she should meet Wozniacki.

Andy has withdrawn from DC?
*sigh* I was hoping he would play and take out a little frustration. Be around his teammates. I expect he will have a few bad days about this, but will be hungry to hit the summer hard courts. His current form and Ashe stadium should be a good match up.

"Of course I always feel people should be happy for the guy who won and not for the guy who lost."

i hope this is a misquote or taken out of context. So I will give it the benefit of the doubt. But if not, whoa.

Seems logical that Fed would withdraw from Montreal (I expect Cincy WD will follow). Several media reports say the baby is due around Aug 10th.

I can't stand the GOAT conversations, as I believe there are way too many variables from era to era. But I also think Fed deserves the best of his era, despite his skewed head to head against Rafa ... he has spent more time as #1 over Rafa because he has been more consistent, overall. There is a reason why it took all those years ... and a phenomenal year, for Rafa to overtake Fed.

Rafa is amazing, but he's not a machine ... and it shouldn't be assumed, automatically, that he's going to come back and beat everyone senseless. Don't put the horns on him.

I hate the GOAT debates, so I'll redirect slightly :)

To eliminate head to head questions, etc., answer this question:

If you had to pick one open era player (I think the debates are pointless otherwise) in his prime to play for your life in a best-of-five set match where you didn't know the surface or the venue, who would you pick?

Personally, I'd have to go with Federer (big surprise). I wouldn't entirely trust Nadal or Borg on hardcourts (much as I think they are both outstanding hardcourt players overall), I wouldn't trust Sampras, Connors, or McEnroe on clay, I wouldn't trust Lendl on grass, I wouldn't trust Agassi period. If my life were on the line, prime-Fed is the only player I'd trust if any surface was a possibility.

Now if I knew the surface it would be Sampras on grass, Borg on clay (though it was basically a toss-up), and Federer on hard.

I guess this is another way of saying, I think he's the best overall tennis player of the open era.

(One reason this wouldn't work over different eras is we don't really know how the earlier guys would have done on hardcourts.)

On the Fed-Rafa h2h issue:

IMO, Fed just have to win three more matches against Nadal.

Why? Well, first, Nadal should be taken away one match victory by each 1000 underpants scratches and/or 20sec pauses between serves (and I'm being nice to Rafa). That, by my calculations, represents at least two games.

Second, ATP shouldn't count twilight games like last years Wimby finals. That makes three matches.

The true Fedal h2h is 10-7.

Go Fed, you can do it!

Congratulations to all the fellow fedfans out there! Now Roger can enjoy and play his masterful game to the end without any pressure to break this record or that record. I'm sure people will be digging up more of them, but he doesn't have anything to prove anymore. Aside from defending his titles, it should be clear sailing from here on in.

Of course it broke me up to see how upset Andy was. He played such a terrific match and fought tooth and nail to win it, and almost did. All credit to him to play a match that only differed in a few points, which was just enough to loose.

I can only say that it still looked as though Roger was in a more confort level position on the grass. The games went quickly as if Roger kept just swatting at a pesky fly that he couldn't squash. Maybe there needed to be a Nadal across the net to hurl his body back and forth to such an extreme to be able to somehow break Rogers' serve in the end. To the point of putting major wear and tear on his legs and knees. But he wasn't there.

As fit as Andy has become, he still seemed to struggle more out there. And that is what it came down to. A bit more fragile at the end to loose it.

I am proud as an American to see Andy in the final and it wouldn't have hurt so bad to see Roger loose if that happened. The crowd was behind Andy and that made me feel good also. He has tweeked his game for the better and he should feel proud.

But back to Roger, again CONGRATS FEDFANS!!!! And as far as the rankings go, THE RETURN OF THE KING!!

@Icarus

I know you asked only for male players, but the Navratilova-Shriver
h2h of 37-3 is worth posting! Amazing...wonder how P. Shriver felt.

Mike, your posts rock the house, couldnt agree more!

We all wish Rafa a speedy recovery, but how tedious is the "if he werent tired, if he was fresh, if he was healthy' stuff over and over, he's an athlete for god sake, you dont get a guarantee youll be at your best every time, you have to find ways to win when youre NOT at your best, thats the sign of a true champ ...

anyone can win when theyre fresh, rested, healthy and hungry, what about winning when youre beat up, exhuasted, hurting and under immense pressure?

Rafa has had a little over a year of amazing Slam results, GOAT worthy results, but one year does not count for much... Wilander had the same results in 88 and basically just disappeared after that...

lets let Rafa have a few years of winning 3 Slams before we even go there... will be very interesting to see him fend off the new generation of tall, big hitting guys who arent bothered by big topspin

The volley that Andy missed in the set 2 tiebreak was just a great shot by Fed. I thought that there was no doubt it would go in.....Roger puts a lot of sidespin on those shots, as well as top, and the ball was dropping fast and curving in....It was a shot that is usually missed by all except maybe Pat Rafter or Tim Henman.
Did anyone besides me notice that Andy broke himself in the final game? The word choke isn't appropriate after all that nerves-of-steel tennis by Andy, but Roger got ahead 30 love by blocking back 2 floaters, and watching Andy hit them into the net off flat feet (maybe they took bad bounces on the dirt, maybe Andy just couldn't move that well after all that tennis).....then Andy hit three service winners, then another blocked floater, and another errant forehand off dead feet....then another winner, then two more errant unforced forehand (maybe one was a back hand)....Andy's nerves had finally snapped....but who could blame him? Andy was always well-liked...this match may make him beloved.....maybe he can pull a Goran someday.....he'll need to count on the Good Andy, the Bad Andy, and the EMERGENCY Andy......

awed_fan :
«I know you asked only for male players, but the Navratilova-Shriver
h2h of 37-3 is worth posting! Amazing...wonder how P. Shriver felt.»

Geez...

How many shrinks did Shriver gone to erase that?

awed_fan :
«I know you asked only for male players, but the Navratilova-Shriver
h2h of 37-3 is worth posting! Amazing...wonder how P. Shriver felt.»

Geez...

How many shrinks did Shriver gone to erase that?

"How many shrinks did Shriver gone to erase that?"

She did not go to a shrink but used her head and teamed with her in doubles.