Anyone who was watching the finals yest(ok, most) would have been equally happy if Roddick won...I know I would.

but Christopher, the Nike drone that brought it out, knew how the match played out.

If Fed had turned up at his presser wearing his RF cap with a new 15 logo on it, I don't think it would have bothered too many people. Like you said, its done all the time, and its expected.

Along those lines, makes me think why didn't another Nike drone go to the friends box and pass out RF15 caps to his team, so they could be shown showing their participation and support as well.

I think the 15 jacket gets the red card. Along with NBC, and specifically Johnny Mac & Poodle Ted. That pains me, I generally like those 2, but yesterday, not so much.

Some will continue to sy Rodick deserved to win, which I find as absurd because in sport you earn your win. I don't remember hearing anyone say at the conclusion of last year Wimbledo that Fed deserved to win after he came back from two sets down to a near win. Whether people want to give Roger created or not, he has rightfully earned it, and will only be taken from him as he has worked so hard to take the no. 1 ranking back from Rafa, and eclypes the great Pet S.

Go Roger, you are great at what you do, and some of us honestly think you are a joy to watch.

Whoever coined the term: hidsight is 20/20 must have been some kind of genius. Listen to all these Morning Morning Quarterbacks--Fed should have said this or he should have said that. He should have hit this shot or he should have hit that one. If he had played like last year he would have won in two, in three, in 1, in four. And on & on it goes....Some even say that Roddick deserved to win cos--in their opinion--he played better.

Jeez Louis--this was a very tightly contested Wimbledon final...played between two warriors who left it all out there. Certainly, Federer didn't bring his A game, for most of the match, but he played well enough to win & by virtue of that--he deserved to win.

In a post-match conference where he hasn't even had the opportunity to digest this herculian effort, people are still second guessing a tremendously heartfelt answer he offered in--what he thought--was consolation to the one who came second. Roddick snapped at him--that can be excused as well--cos it came in the heat of the moment.

People, please try not to forget that these are athletes, that they are every bit as human as the rest of us. They are severely talented but they are prone to the same errors & omissions as all of us. Being on a very public stage after such a physically exerting drama-filled encounter, there are bound to be mis-speaks.

Christopher:

Well, I don't like arrogance, but I didn't find the jacket too much (small 15 sign on the right bottom back, Federer wasn't even sure where it was). Roger was decent at that moment too, so props to him! Besides the jacket looked better then the stupid military outfit one :)

FedererFan:

Be careful for what you wish (I'm even on one of the club's teams, first player doh). :) But joke aside, good luck to you and to all other recrational or competitive tennis players here!

Pspace: My yesterday opponent and new parnter, who serves like cannon pointed out something interesting: maybe my racket is too heavy for serving? His was about 300g (an older Babolat Aero Controll or something), while my Wilson Six one-95 is about 343g...

Maybe I should try a lighter racket (I do have a lighter Babolat AeroPro Drive Cortex, Rafa's, at around 320g, in my bag)? We'll see, for now, I'll keep trying with mine...

Slick Sparrow:

Thank you. If anyone--here, at the South Pole, or on Pluto--is going to do a GOAT analysis, it should be done with depth and specificity. You have done that; no small achievement.

TWibe:

It's fine to opine on the GOAT, but if any of us dares to wade into that pool (or dive into it pell-mell), it should be done with an appreciable amount of historical sweep, analytical detail, and categorical depth. Then we can actually compare and weigh various strengths and weaknesses.

Trotting out one or two familiar arguments just doesn't cut it.

I was just perusing the forum and I happen to glance over the absurd comments suggesting that rogers post match comments were insensitive. I did not think so in the slightest. Nadal handled the win last year well and just because Rog didnt hug Andy doesnt make him insensitive. Personally, I dont think A rod would have enjoyed a hug or anymore recognition from Roger. The fifteen on the jacket was a bit pompous but what else can we expect from Rog, Rafa does the same think on his jackets and sneakers and maybe if Andy had more than 1 slam he would too. As for the GOAT argument, its Rog end of story stop the debates, no one has won 15 grand slams regardless of the surrounding competion. Rog has proven consistant over many generations.

Game Lover, I dunno. If you have a heavier racquet, you should probably try to get more with timing, rather than swing speed. Presumably a lighter racquet swung faster would have the same effect as a heavier racquet swung slower? The times I wish for a lighter racquet is when I have to deal with sliced balls, as you need to get some head speed to put topsin on it. Other than that, the weight can work for you ;-).

"Likewise, I didn't see the same Gonzo in the '07 AO final that downed Rafa so brilliantly in the QF."

NP : A bit unfair to add that caveat. Federer walked on water throughout that AO win, and it was one of the most comprehensive Slam wins in recent years, along with Nadal at RG last year. I honestly think that was his peak level of play in terms of his career.

Still believe Andy's higher level of play once points got going was the reason for Roger being B+ of the ground yesterday rather than A. He was a bit shell shocked. I think it impeded his usual bead on Roddicks serve. But he got better end of that last set. And it was on the rise topping the ball at the end that rushed Roddick and contributed to his loss of timing (shanks). For those of you on this thread who are players and have competed at a fairly high level- you know how unexpected (or even expected) pressure can make you look a notch below your normal level. Ifs, coulds, and shoulds, IF Federer had broken when he had the chance and won the first set, perhaps he would have open his shoulders early and we would have had a 3 set match.

Laver made some great remarks about "greatest"; too hard to compare player from separate eras when the slams were on different surfaces and with differing importance. Fed and Sampras's eras are really quite close, but you cannot compare Laver to Federer really.

By the way- Laver also said some important things when asked about winning more slams if he had not turned pro. Leave it to Laver to be both modest and honest. He stated that when he won his first slam and went on the pro circut (separate from amature in 1962 of course)he was not the best in the world. Pancho Gonzalez was- and Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall were also pros and beat up on Rod for a few years after he turned pro in '62.

It would be like Djokovic winning a slam without Fed, Murray, and Nadal on tour.

Greatest in no particular order? Laver, Sampras, Federer, Gonzalez, Budge, Tilden. In the modern pro era perhaps you have to put Fed on the top. But really, who cares- I saw Gonzalez play at age 40ish and I doubt I will ever see more talent in a 40 year old player- never saw him in his prime. I saw Laver at his peak and there was no shot that he was not master of- and FAST. When I saw Sampras in his first US Open win- I said to myself- here we go again. I thought the same with early Safin- but he did not have the mental game.

But way Federer moves, the beauty of his game and his amazing personality- grace really have only one rival- Laver- just as tatented and just as graceful.

Old timers also will tell you that Lew Hoad was a great great talent before his back took its toll- the Aussies when they are amoung themselves sort of defer to him as their greatest. I never saw him play either.

15 > 14
GS on 4 surfaces > GS on 3 surfaces
#1 for 237 consc weeks > 160 consc weeks
20 GS finals > ...

You get the picture.

Beth, Ruth et al, the infamous 'jacket' is shown on the top of this post. as well as Ros's photos. as well as in all the pictures of fed w/ the trophy, interviews etc. its the same warm up jacket he's been wearing all week, with the smallish embroidered 15 on the back over the hip by the waistband.

its not like its a lv purse, with 15 sprinkled all over it. You need to be fairly close and be looking for it to see / notice it at all.

*shakes head over tempest in a teapot*

VC, I'm not saying Fed would've lost to Gonzo playing in his element. I just didn't see the same Gonzo who downed Nadal in straights only 2 rounds ago.

I don't know why people talk to Bud Collins anymore. It's almost like the interviewers want him to say what they already know he's going to say. I guess his attire is colorful, so why not hear his opinions as well.

Not sure why an assortment of writers and fans feel Andy Roddick "should have won." Both players made mistakes and both had moments of sheer brilliance. That's how it should be among competitors in a great tournament's final, and these two really delivered. If you look at the match stats, Federer came out on top. He won, so he "should have won." Winners atke advantage of what's given to them and hang tough when the going gets rough. Federer did this, as he's done so often. This was a good and sensitive article. Sometimes it seems Mr. Bodo is such a Nadal fan that he doesn't give Federer a fair shot, but not this time. And Andy Roddick doesn't deserve to be slammed for the mistakes he made any more than Fed does. He played superbly and was absolutely lionhearted. Hats off to both of them!

NP : Well, that's debatable, and it's more a matchup issue. I'd say Federer has defused more than his fair share of landmines in early Slam rounds, that's why he has his inhuman 21-semi run going. Notable examples are Ancic in Wimbledon 2006 QF, Blake in US Open 2006 QF, Djokovic AO 2007 R4, Lopez US Open 2007 R4, Andreev US Open 2008 R4, Soderling and Karlovic Wimbledon 2009. Most of them were in good form coming in and have the kind of game that is ideal for pulling off upsets. I agree with the original point that Federer is simply less vulnerable to these kind of threats. Otherwise, the next best such streak in the Open era wouldn't be so far behind.

"but the H2H as it stands can’t be dismissed so flippantly, either. So try not to get so worked up next time some1 brings up this issue. It’s a legitimate one, whether you like it or not."

NP ... it's not dismissed. 13-7 is there ... and referenced, day in and day out. What is left out by most RafaKADS is everything but the raw stat, and there are some things worth mentioning, which is all I was doing. Fair ... no?

I can't believe people are still bickering over whether Andy "deserved to win." I'll make it easier for you geniuses: Fed won fair and square. End of discussion. Now try to calm down when others say Andy coulda/shoulda have won, and not get so defensive about anything you find remotely unflattering to your hero. Surely you have something better to do.

This place is so great to visit these days.

Instead of truely appreciating the amazing play by both players yesterday, instead of truly respecting the monstrous achievement of winning 15 GS titles, instead of marveling at how two relatively young men could even speak coherently after such a match:

I get to read such drivel as:

Federer was arrogant to wear a jacket with the smallest "15" label on the backside one could imagine signifying a record breaking win.

Federer didn't "deserve" to win because Roddick played his heart out, left nothing on the court, and played better than he ever has.

Federer was insensitive to try and console Roddick during the post match interview.

Federer's not the GOAT because of whatever floats your boat.....

And the bestest of all:

Federer will never win another major title because he can no longer play top flight tennis.

He's a dog again it seems, barely 24 hours after his historic win.

Love all the nit picking going on here, the sniping taking place, the negatives still being thrown - what a lovely place this blog is to visit.

Seems no one can be happy for anyone these days without throwing a "BUT" into the mix to remake the world as one wants to see it.

VC, will get back to ya later.

Mike, I honestly don't see many Rafa KADs reference it day in and day out. Unless you mean trolls, but they are an unavoidable part of blogs. And yes, it's fair to note that the H2H doesn't tell the whole story. If you recall I've been making this very point for some time now. It's a small hole in Fed's otherwise stellar resume.

CherryNYC:

I am approaching normalcy. Not fully recovered. Thanks for the checkup.

A somewhat personalized summary of mine:

As Fed usually does, i.e., force the opponents hand in 7th, 8th, 9th games, especially when they serve well, he did that. And he did that commendably. He had like 4 break points on 5-5 but missed them all by an inch or inch and a half (no, not two inches). Regardless, the only break point he gave away, he committed an UFE. And thus went the first set. Ifs and buts...and all that. If that first set had gone Fed's way, this match would have over long ago. By the way, I have a feeling that it is still on...

It was a treat to watch the 2nd set tiebreaker. Bugger has ice running on his veins, especially when pushed to a corner. Both upped the ante in the third and Fed played a brilliant 3rd set TB. Fed fell asleep a bit, and more so, Roddick played like Rafa a bit on the 4th set and Fed couldn't get that break back and lost the 4th.

From then on, i.e., from mid way through 4th till the end, Fed went for 18 straight games holding serves. Fed held serve exceptionally - only once he gave 2 BPs and got it back quickly. Fed served like a maniac. See, he hides his serves very well. I have a feeling that Fed doesn't want to be branded as a serving machine or a volleying pony (didn't he always talk about entertaining all round tennis for fans and audience?) but Roddick, man, this guy has reached a new level of respect among fans, forced Fed to be an ace machine. 50 aces. Well, look at the statistics.

And it all happened quickly. There were no 25 or 35 second service preparations. They asked for the towel at times, used it as they walked to serve and they served. Did they! It all went very fast. All this tennis (of course, take a gander at the scoreboard) in 4 hours and 8 minutes or so.

It all felt like being on a roller coaster while watching the 4th of July fireworks for about 4 hours - with a 93 minutes finale. OD'd.

Perversely, I wish one of them took a medical break or it had rained and so they had to close the roof or some such. Some break, any break, would have given folks who were watching to catch a breath, regroup their perspectives, step out a bit, to think what's going on from outside. It was not the case. They just went after it. Fed hardly sweat.

To me, per Pete Bodo, this is probably the best illustration of a "Junkyard Dog being a Sprezzatura". I cannot find this combination in any of Fed's slams. Fed didn't want to let this get away. And Roddick couldn't take it away. And Roddick, did he try!

Remarkable tennis.

Years from now, weeks from now, days from now, when folks get over the surprise-element called Roddick in this encounter (most felt for him, including me - just like Verdasco did in AO or Nole in Madrid), they will comprehend the scope fully and appreciate the true nature of this fight from Fed.

He fought Kohlschreiber and Soderling (one of the finest matches of this tournament - technically speaking) and Dr.Ivo (clinically astute display - technically speaking) and Haas (just mastery) on the way to get here. And then, this final!

To me this is one of the best Slams of Fed.

Flyer: ...Federer's not the GOAT because of whatever floats your boat.....

Ha Ha. That was nice.

Thanks, jb. What I was saying is that I had not actually seen the infamous 15 since, as you and Christopher explained, it was on the back of the jacket, and no photographer has published a picture (that I've seen) that shows the back of the jacket.

Which, I repeat, is a good thing. :) Remember the pictures of the back-to-front slacks in 2007 or 2008???

Thanks, jb. What I was saying is that I had not actually seen the infamous 15 since, as you and Christopher explained, it was on the back of the jacket, and no photographer has published a picture (that I've seen) that shows the back of the jacket.

Which, I repeat, is a good thing. :) Remember the pictures of the back-to-front slacks in 2007 or 2008???

Another classic quote from Bud Collins: Nadal would never play again with the same energy as before 'cause these knee issues are permanent. I guess now he's a doc.

TripleF:

Thanks for the post - feel better now!

Nadal will be back with a vengence.

I'm loving the KAD lumping going on today...*deep sigh*

Slick Sparrow and Kitty Mac - always like to read your posts, wish you posted more often. :)

Annie - "vintage" - I like it! I'm not a grumpy old woman, I'm a grumpy vintage woman.

Even more grumpy than earlier - Typepad hates me today.

The gentlemen's finals last Sunday would have been different if it was Roger & Rafa who played. If Rafa was physically fit, Im sure Roger cant get that trophy. Im not underestimating Andy Roddick's capabilities but Roger's performance was not superb. Rafa can finish that by 3rd or 4th set. Roger is still lucky. He is lucky because his greatest nemesis was missing in that tournament. I believe that it wasn't an achievement for Roger. It was if he was able to answer his last year's defeat by beating Rafa in Wimbledon & even in French Open. I hope Roger can really prove that he truly deserves to be called the greatest tennis player by outplaying Rafa in the future.

The gentlemen's finals last Sunday would have been different if it was Roger & Rafa who played. If Rafa was physically fit, Im sure Roger cant get that trophy. Im not underestimating Andy Roddick's capabilities but Roger's performance was not superb. Rafa can finish that by 3rd or 4th set. Roger is still lucky. He is lucky because his greatest nemesis was missing in that tournament. I believe that it wasn't an achievement for Roger. It was if he was able to answer his last year's defeat by beating Rafa in Wimbledon & even in French Open. I hope Roger can really prove that he truly deserves to be called the greatest tennis player by outplaying Rafa in the future.

VC, let's first look at some of the particular matches you mentioned. I saw the whole Lopez '07 USO R4 match live, and while I thought Feli served out of his mind in the 1st 2 sets I never felt he could threaten Fed off the ground. Ditto with Ancic in the '06 Wimby QF and no doubt (understatement, I know) Karlovic this year. Don't think Blake was on fire in the '06 USO QF, and I think you'll agree that Andreev isn't quite up there with the other guys with big groundies. Haven't seen the Djokovic '07 AO R4 match, agree that Fed fared well against Sod in SW19 this yr.

Now 2 things:

1) All these matches took place while Fed was in his prime. OTOH, Rafa had yet to reach his prime in '07, ran into a virtually unbeatable opponent in Tsonga in '08, and lost to Sod in '09 possibly due to his tendinitis.

2) You're right that this is a matchup issue, and if Rafa's Achilles' heel is indeed players with big groundies playing the match of their life, Fed also has a weakness in defensive baseliners playing their best tennis, e.g., Simon last year and Canas in '07. Oh yeah, and Murray. Now how many times has Fed run into such opponents at Slams so far? I can't recall any, and I mean that without any snark. Just one thing to keep in mind if we wanna be fair across the board.

""If Rafa was physically fit, Im sure Roger cant get that trophy""

If Rafa was physically fit, I'm sure Roger would've played better.

If Rafa was physically fit, I'm not sure he would've made the final.

If Rafa was physically fit, it would definitely have been a more interesting tournament.

-----------

""I believe that it wasn't an achievement for Roger""

If Roger didn't get mono, I'm sure that .... etc.

After reading some of your comments, I guess I'm a little different Federer fan and I give no apology for it. I don't care if Roger had to win this match on one-leg playing an opponent with his hands tied behind him. I WANTED A WIN!

I'm reading that "I'm a Federer fan but I'm sad and was actually pulling for Roddick in the end". Huh? Come again!??? Heck, I wanted Roger to win this match by any means necessary. If that means I'm selfish - oh well!

Some of you think that what Roger has done is easy and that "well, Roger will have more opportunity to get that slam"... NOTHING is a guarantee. That's why I wanted Roger to win #15 while he still had a chance! There is no guarantee he'll even get to another final! So in no way was I pulling against Roger in the final.

Sure I was sad that Roddick lost a heardbreaker, but man I was jumping up and down that Roger created history! OF all the grand slams that Roger was going for - this one SHOULD have been the dream of all Federer fans as he was going for history. No other man in the history of the ATP has 15 grand slam single titles! No One!

So you guys can talk about me for being selfish all you want but I'm not subdued, I'm not 'torn' - I am on cloud 9 and I'll be there for the rest of the year.

Back in January, I posted after Roger lost the AO that my "dream" would be that Roger would tie #14 and get his French Open; then he would break it at Wimbledon. That was a far fetched thought I had then and even I didn't really 'believe' it... but IT CAME TRUE! So I am soooooooooooooooooooooooo happy right now. I can't help it. Sorry to the Roddick fans, but I just can't contain my happiness right now.

So go ahead and call me selfish. I'm one selfish Roger Federer fan and proud of it!

Honestly I care only about the slams and more so because of the history. In addition, the best of five version is a better test than the best of three. I think it is very difficult to defeat Roger in best of five version. Roddick found that yesterday.

Also, I do not understand why people keep saying stupid things like" If Nadal was playing yesterday....." pfftttt. He was not. End of the story. Stick with what happened and who was on the court.

I was glad to see that Pete Sampras showed up for the match. A little advice to Pete and Bridget - you know you are going to be on TV so lose the gum!

"You're right that this is a matchup issue, and if Rafa's Achilles' heel is indeed players with big groundies playing the match of their life, Fed also has a weakness in defensive baseliners playing their best tennis, e.g., Simon last year and Canas in '07. Oh yeah, and Murray. Now how many times has Fed run into such opponents at Slams so far? I can't recall any, and I mean that without any snark. Just one thing to keep in mind if we wanna be fair across the board."

Good post. Maybe that's because it's harder for lower-ranked defensive opponents to threaten someone like Federer even when they have the day of their lives (especially in a 3/5 format). Lower ranked big-hitters are likelier to cause upsets (particularly on fast surfaces) because by definition, they possess more weapons. But Federer knows how to handle that kind of tennis, better than most top players. Only the cream of players that play counter-attacking tennis like Murray, and Nadal can beat him in Slams. And such clashes only come in later rounds. BTW, I'm only including Murray on basis of evidence of their Masters Series encounters, and they don't necessarily reflect what will happen in a Slam meeting.

Basically I'm trying to get to the reason why Federer has the 21-streak going, and I believe it is the variety that serves him well against the big-hitting, in-form opponents. Not because he hasn't faced challenges and potential upsets in early rounds.

VC, I think it very likely that in their future meetings Murray will give Fed a tougher fight than he did in last year's USO final, given Fed's H2Hs against players of a similar playing style. We gonna see.

And I'd say the reason why Fed hasn't often run into on-fire defensive baseliners at Slams may be because they are generally ranked lower than hard-hitting counterpunchers, though there are obvious exceptions, Wilander and Murray being well-known examples. And this matchup issue is just one reason why this GOAT debate is far from over. Who knows how many Slams Lendl would've won without having to deal with not one but at least FOUR GOATs in McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Wilander? And how many Slams would Federer have won if Rafa and Murray had broken his party earlier? (BTW one question I don't ask is whether Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer would've been as great had they played in the same era. Such a player comes along only once in a generation, if at all.) Just some food for thought.

It was a great match in terms of drama and tension. The tennis wasn't that great from Roger, although Andy astonished me in the final and in the match against Andy Murry - I had no idea he was capable of such variety!

One thing that was very apparent to those of us in London on Sunday - the wind. It was pretty strong and gusty and the TV pictures didn't really show it. Obviously the seating and shape of the centre court provide some shelter, but there must have been some nasty gusts and turbulence in there. Those conditions don't suit Roger one bit - he relies on pin point accuracy and touch for many of his special shots, and I think it explains why so many of them drifted just out compared to what we're used too.

Something I would love to have explained to me, and I wish someone had asked Roger was why he chose to play so many floating sliced shots to Andy's backhand? It didn't seem a particularly effective tactic, yet he did it throughout the match... Anyone got any ideas here? Roger's a highly intelligent man and tennis player, so he must have had his reasons.

Thank you Pspace!

"And how many Slams would Federer have won if Rafa and Murray had broken his party earlier?"

True, but it's also worth considering that Federer's marginal decline coincided with Rafa and Murray breaking the party while they started peaking, atleast outside clay... basically, we'll never know because the question rules out such a scenario by definition..

Yes, thank you, Pspace! I knew you couldn't fully jump off my BFed's bandwagon. *gently removes Pspace from doghouse* :)

FoT - lol..you GO!!

It seems to me that most human beings are capable of holding seemingly contradictory ideas AND emotions at the same time. So I can empathize with Andy R and yet delight in Fed's amazing accomplishments. Ain't I just special. lol.

I DO like the GOAT for a day concept...(thank you Pspace)...because if nothing else it will shift the discussion from WHO is THE GOAT to which DAY is for which GOAT. I can see us wasting just TONS of bandwidth on THAT.

CrazyforRog - if you are still around...I thought your post around midnight last night regarding our perceptions of the match being affected by our EXPECTATIONS of Fed and Roddick's play was very insightful.

I am right there with you--Fot. I am SO glad he won.

And for the...Federer would not have won if Nadal was there...there are insufficient words to describe how utterly ridiculous & repulsive those statements are--talk about sour grapes. Just because Federer lost a few matches to Nadal does not mean he will keep losing to him. Federer holds a winning record over Nadal at Wimbledon...last year's 9-7 loss in the fifth does not change every dynamic. Plus & get this: Federer was the bookmaker's favorite even when they thought Nadal would play--Murray was the second favorite. And just a couple of weeks before Wimbledon, everyone was sure that it was Murray who would meet Federer in the final. So, when you return to the land of OZ--perhaps you can give those some thoughts.

Plus, please don't forget also that you cannot win slams on history--you have to actually show up & play. Nadal would have still needed to win 6 matches before reaching the final. Federer WON 6 matches before reaching the final. See if you can figure out the difference in those two sentiments.

I think Fed will work his way back into the HC season just fine. Obviously EVERYTHING changes with a baby on board but his ability to focus seems extraordinary.

As for Andy...what struck me was the eerie parallels between his Wimby performance and the way Stefanki led Gonzo through that great AO. He re-tooled both their tactics and attitude and helped each guy find his best game. Gonzo faded pretty quickly after that but methinks Andy is made of sterner stuff. The question that will face him is can he EXECUTE his tactics as the same high level he did at Wimby throughout the summer season? That consistency is something that, really, only Fed and Rafa...and to a lesser extent Muzzah... have been able to bring to bear. But we gonna see, no?

Hey Miz Tangi - your posts last night were pretty great too!

Can't believe we are still talking about Fed's jacket. If Sue Barker hadn't asked, no one would have ever seen it til it showed up in photos later. I wonder how much Nike paid HER? lol.

FoT- Totally agree with you. My brother and I both watched the match yesterday and we're both huge Fed fans who also adore Roddick. The only time I don't root for Roddick is when he's playing Fed.

At one point in the fifth set my brother said, "Ok, I'm totally rooting for Roddick now. Just let him get one Wimby. Fed will have lots more chances to get 15."

Whereas I thought, "Whoa...that's SO not a given!" He's human. He could have a career ending injury next month for all we know. I'm not going to apologize for really, really wanting him to get the 15th while in the middle of a match where he's still got a fighting chance.

Yeah, I felt terrible for Roddick (and his fans) at the end of it, but at the same time I was ecstatic my guy won. To say he didn't deserve it as much as Roddick did, is crazy.

IF Roddick should have won, he would have won, obviously it was Roger who should have won, because he did.

FoT:

Word.
Right on.

We appreciate good tennis, great fight and awesome display and all...but being an individual sport, we want our idols, our heroes to win.

And to that end, Yes, I was dying through 4th and 5th set to see Roger win his 15th here - given the audience, the occasion, and his first and 15th at the same Wimby etc., etc., etc., etc.

Whatever happens, come what may, Federer should win this...was the mantra throughout. Yea, yeah, yeah, once it was over, one empathizes with Roddick, but man, when it was ON, till it was over, there was only one word. FEDERER.

And this is called selfish by some trolls here? Sure! Feel free. Now, you should see the smirk on my face as I write this.

Yes, I got in to watch Federer win, I stewed for Fed to win and I exhaled and celebrated deliriously when Fed won. Moreover, I feel good about it all. Very good. I am a fan.

PS: If, for some reason, a sensitive middle-of-the-road soul reads this and gets offended, well, with due respect to you, please pick your ATP guy (or a different sport) and wait for him to win. If not, just pick your ATP guy and say you couldn't care less. If that suits you. Whatever.

If Nadal had been in that tournament, I"m not sure he would have made the final and if he had, I think Fed would have taken him down. Fed was going the distance..... no matter who was on the other side of the net.

Bodo is as ungracious a commentator as ever lived - so, "patience" is what has made Federer win a few majors?? What a pathetic take on a great champion. Laver has it correct; we will never know who is the greatest of all time, because the great champions play/ed in different eras. Federer deserves any commentator;s credit - even from self-serving fools like Bodo.

cl - i'm pretty optimistic that andy will continue to be able to execute. he's kept adding to his game for several years now, once somethings in his repetoire, he doesn't backslide too much.

I'm hoping he rests up, and then attacks the hard courts. I'd really love him to get his own quarter at the us open. depending on how he does during the summer, it mite happen. we'll see.

All of the players advertise. Even Andy's Lacoste crocodiles are about 4x the normal size and Andy is the only player I've noticed who astutely positions his tennis bag on the ground so the Babolat logo is always on full display.

Hey, CL! Thanks and yes, "ain't you just special." Definitely! :)

Can't believe Fed got himself caught up in another wardrobe-gate! He's a magnet for that, isn't he? First blazer-gate, then blazer-gateII, cardigan-gate, murse-gate, military-gate, only to be topped by tracksuit/15-gate. Two gates in one Wimby! Very impressive.

FINALLY, he's the undisputed GOAT of something: wardrobe-gates.

As much as I like Mr. Bodo's writing, there is no such thing as a "Tiebreaker". It is properly referred to as a "Tiebreak".

it seems like people here don't think of 15 as much as milestone. better federer and the sport of tennis say nothing about it. just sweep it under the rug. no one's done it before because it doesn't matter. not a real milestone or record or anything. 15 is not much different than 2 or 3. ok...got it...it's like you thought roddick didn't know federer was going for 15. like he was left out of the news cycle. he knew. and i am sure if he were to win 15 he would have had a jacket, a hat with 15 printed on it and his wife in 15 apparel too. why? it's huge deal. bigger than the wimbledon match. look he was crushed, he will get over it and get mentally fit again. he already had his goran moment when he won the us open..he said that was his dream when he was young was to win the us open and he achieved that...wimbledon was never his dream...it was federer's and rafa's...and for him one day winning wimbledon would be gravy...

Just a note:
Fed has posted a nice video on his facebook page (you don't have to sign-up, just click http://www.facebook.com/Federer to view the video).

Now, as of today, Fed, of course, is officially the No:1.

The Second Reich has started! (insert a teeny-weeny bit of personal satisfaction for predicting the Second Reich!).

That whiff of a falter, as he was approaching and was on the verge of breaking Pete, all those exhibitions, talk-ups and commercial harangues...now looking back, well, dude, Bad Idea. He did slip a bit in those couple of attempts, and now they all will be gone. I could clearly see this guy just going for it from now onwards. With his fullest Self.

God help the chappy who's going to be on the other side from now onwards (especially Slams).

Some people think that it's ok to constantly lose to lesser ranked players like Berdych, Blake or Youhzny or Tsonga or Soderling, but it's a travesty to lose to Nadal. What a pity. Just shows adoration is blind.

Mods: Is there a way to cap the number of people posting as some variant of "Tennis Fan". It's getting hard to keep track. And also, can GOAT be added to the "offensive" language list, and posters using it banned for 12 hours, during which time they are forced to watch Karlovic-Isner on replay or something?

I was wondering how this conversation must have gone:

TENNIS GODS: Okay, Andy... let's mix things up for tomorrow. We have a deal for you... we know that Roger pretty much owns you, but we like you and want you to do well. So what if we guaranteed you the following:
1. Your first serve percentage will be about 70
2. Roger won't be able to read your serve at all. You'll only get broken once in the entire match
3. You'll be better than Roger off the ground
4. We'll spot you a set and a 5-2 lead in a tiebreak.

Now, in return, we're going to--

ANDY: I don't care what you want in return. If you're giving me all that, we gotta deal. [leaves room to practice]

TENNIS GODS: [to each other] Too bad he didn't stay around for the end. He's gonna be an athiest tomorrow morning.

Russ
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Russ, you are brilliant. :)

I could never hear the word GOAT again the rest of my life and be quite content.

Babe-Federer was not the bookies favorite until Nadal got beat at Roland Garros. Certainly with Nadal there it would've been potentially tougher for Federer, not easier.

Trinity Fernandez:
"If Rafa was physically fit, Im sure Roger cant get that trophy. "

It is like saying - If Federer only made winner without error, he would have beaten Rafa every time in straight sets.

That "IF" is absurd.

VC- When has Murray beaten Federer at a Slam. Joker did it once, but really only Nadal has shown he is capable of beating Federer at Slams. Nalbandian used to a little bit, I think. Safin has once. Ancic before Fed took off, but since Federer won his first Wimbledon, Nadal has beaten him 6 times and lost twice. Djokovic & Safin beat him once and I think Kuerten beat him once at the FO in 2004 or someone else. I don't remember. Oh and Nalbandian at UO in 2003.

Why is Murray being discussed as someone who has hurt Feds GS tally? Rafa definitely. Fed would have won 5 or 6 slams more if not for Rafa (Can you imagine? AO - 4; FO - 5 in a row; Wimbly - 7 in a row; UO - 5 in a row --only one unaffected by Nadal).

Murray has never hurt Fed at the majors. Why is he being discussed? He might one day, but not yet.

ebh : I added the disclaimer about Murray only having beaten Federer at Masters series events. I am also highly doubtful about his chances against Federer in a best-of-5 Slam match, if he does not play more aggressive tennis at important moments. This is something Nadal always does.

"Only the cream of players that play counter-attacking tennis like Murray, and Nadal can beat him in Slams. And such clashes only come in later rounds. BTW, I'm only including Murray on basis of evidence of their Masters Series encounters, and they don't necessarily reflect what will happen in a Slam meeting."

VC-Sorry about that. I misread it.

Russ- Shouldn't that say "6-2 lead in the tiebreak?"

Roddick will look back at this match 10 years from now with the same reverance that John McEnroe looks back at his loss in the 1980 WImbledon Final to Bjorn Borg: Roddick will call Sunday's match his greatest moment in tennis.

MWC, I respectfully disagree. Unless Andy wins Wimbledon someday, he will look back on that match with the same reverance that John McEnroe looks back at his loss in the French Open final to Ivan Lendl.

PS: Just saw on PTI that today is the 1 year anniversary of Rafa's Wimbledon title. Oh, and they thought the 15 jacket was "cheesy"

really quick on fed wearing the jacket with #15 on it...if any of you have ever watched a basketball, baseball or fotball game in america the winning team ALWAYS wears a champion t-shirt, hat right away even while the other team is still on the field or bball court...so why is this any different?????
Also, the 15 was extremely obscure and the lady interviewing fed mentioned it.

rudy3 (proud Rafaelite since 2005): Just saw on PTI that today is the 1 year anniversary of Rafa's Wimbledon title. Oh, and they thought the 15 jacket was "cheesy"

PTI is a tv show that has rated male tennis players according to how hot their girlfriends are...

if shaq or lebron or kobe was wearing it, they would talk about how amazing it is for the next year.

olive - i just watched pti and that's why i felt the need to finally address the whole jacket issue, cause if a football, basketball or a baseball team wore a t-shirt or a hat right after winning they would not call it cheesy

ps- don't we know it! :D

There's some talk about Nadal dropping to #3 after the August timeframe(olympics points drop off). I'm not sure how true this is, but if it does happen, that would mean Federer and Nadal might meet in the semis in future events.

PTI (the tv show) is a filler for the afternoon ESPN slot, no one watches it. I tried watching an episode last year, pure waste of time and airwaves.

"if a football, basketball or a baseball team wore a t-shirt or a hat right after winning they would not call it cheesy"

Yeah, especially considering that they all do.

Couldn't agree more with the sentiment below. Federer's 'I know how you feel' comment was perhaps the most insulting thing I have ever heard in sports, and Andy was right on to call him on his delusional BS.

People: the reason Roger was having a hard time hitting groundstrokes is because Andy was nailing them back with bite, for the first time in a long time in his career. I've always liked his consistency but he really made an effort to attack, and hit loads of winners, including those great backhand down the lines, as well as actual aggressive forehands.

I wanted Andy to win so badly - to me the difference in this match (aside from Fed's unreal serving near the end) was that Andy's big chances were the only points he truly played poorly - both the 4 set points in the 2nd set tiebreak and the two break points (essentially match points) at 8-8 in the 5th. He played a tentative serve and volley point. To me, this match mirrored exactly the Nadal/Verdasco match from the AO, where, against all reason, the superior player was defeated.

Btw I think Andy Roddick has the best, most grounded attitude on the whole ATP tour. I admire one who calls it like it is.

Speaking of Roddick, to me, that is the most heartbreaking loss I think I have ever witnessed on a tennis court. I don't know why, but just something of their personal histories, his past against Federer, the work he put in, the missed opportunity in the second set, the way his first serve finally abandoned him in the 77th game, his brave show at the end with the bloodshot eyes, gallows humor, and above all, the moment when his mask of politeness slipped off just a bit when Federer told Sue that he "knew what it's like, because of last year" and Roddick somewhat testily replied that "yeah you'd won it five times"...gosh, just sickening to the stomach. I still think Federer is a classy guy, and probably meant well, but that comment is just a sucker punch man, did you really have to rub it in? I hope Roddick wins another slam before he retires, hopefully Wimbledon...or at least beat Roger in a slam.

Posted by dulatoag 07/05/2009 @ 8:50 PM

Though i respect and even like Federer, I think he has started to lose a small touch with reality. First, the gold rimmed outfit with his usual RF stamp on it (Nike pressure or not), the ridiculous and presumptious 15 pre-stitched into the jacket, and the absurd and rather embarrassing comment that he "understood" Roddick's loss because of his own loss to Rafa last year. Loved hearing Roddick in the background upon hearing that, stating something to the effect of "how can you possibly understand after your loss came after 5 victories" - and an imperceptible shake of the head. I'm glad he finally won the French and glad he finally came up with 15 ... now I'm ready to have Rafa come back and kick his gold trimmed ass back to 2nd, and I'd give a kidney to see Roddick take him out in a slam final.

was roger supposed to lose on purpose to andy? i just don't get all this criticism of roger. it's not roger's fault that andy couldn't take advantage of 4 set points. roger hung in there till he had an opening in the 5th set. was roger supposed to not take advantage of having a match point?

and i saw nothing wrong with what roger said. i thought he was sympathetic and compassionate. nothing this guy does is right to some people and it is sickening. i don't know how these people stand fame cause i sure couldn't take all the criticism and second guessing. what would have been correct for roger to say in your eyes??

[smiles at Russ]

I do still remember your soundtrack man.

For Peter B's Elephant carrying Fed (in his entire military regalia) to the center court, with Blake and Roddick (you did say Roddick, didn't you? didn't you? didn't you Russ? Did. Not. You.?) flanking the Elephant carrying the RF Flag...while Tina Turner's "simply the best" and James Brown's "Living in Dubai" and 2009 Queen with David Bowie doing "We are Champions" et al blaring...Don't you remember that? I still cackle at that.

Pete Bodo, didn't Fed slide off the trunk and the Elephant obliged with the coin toss? And TWibes worrying about animal rights and PETA? remember?

and then, Pete you punctuated the imagery with "Rajah (Roger) indeed!"

In Sankskrit, "Rajah" is King. "Rajaathi Rajah" is King of Kings. The Emperor.

Here's to Rajaathi Rajah Rodgeh!

"was roger supposed to lose on purpose to andy?"

No, but he was expected to run around for hours and then attend a funeral. This is apparently something that's easy to do.

Grant is back - who said this is a humorless brigade?

"what would have been correct for roger to say in your eyes??"

What about, Seeing Andy standing over there with such dignity, I know realize what a twit I was in Australia, and I think I owe Rafa a phone call.
or something like that :)

No really, there is no good thing to say. Its an awkward situation, no way around it. I think Fed was as flustered as i have seen him at a trophy presentation. His on court interview was uncharateristically rambling.
Given the circumstances, I think he could have done better, he's crushed some guy's dream 15 times, and 6 times there. He knows the drill.

If only this is '80s and '90s (seeing JMac's tantrums, witnessing the unsung icy Lendl, the ever-placid Edberg, the skirt-chasing (was he, no?) Becker and the void-of-personality Courier, the colorful Andre and the colorless Pete...) without the Internet, without chat-sessions and without all these instant 'posting'...folks would have logged this match in some epic/classic/great(est) category and moved on with life.

Now, look at us!

i guess roger won the match but andy has gotten the moral victory. i wonder if the crowds will ever cheer for roger to win again. against andy certainly not.

english isn't his first language, he looked like he couldn't find the right words to say. he always is stumbling around with words in trophy ceremonies in english.

ebh--when the bookmakers made Federer the favorite is not important--the fact is that they made him the favorite to win when they started making the books for Wimbledon. The fact also is that Federer was the favorite for many for Wimbledon before he won the French; the odds probably just got better after he won. Nadal fans are always trying--as if they could--to diminish Federer's accomplishment simply because the almighty Rafa wasn't there. Who is to blame for his absence? Can anyone guarantee that he would have beaten Federer if he had been there? Can any of them guarantee that he would have even made the final if he had been there? The answer to all three is a resounding: NO!

There is a reason why there is a draw of 128--that is why it is called a tournament. You have a draw & you have to beat everyone in your way before you can reach the final & win. Nadal has had a few good years at Wimbledon but he has hardly blown away his opponents--in fact, whilst healthy he came pretty damn close to loosing in some early round matches. Lets also remember that he had Murrqay in his half & may well have lost to him had he reached the semi. (We'll never know.) So his installation into the final is not automatic. Consequently, all this talk about what woulda shoulda coulda happened is just that: TALK.

This is simply an example of blind adoration. Yes, if Rafa hadn't hurt his knee he would have parted the red sea.

rudy3: funny about AO comment. Right on. That's why I loved Fed's roaring exultation of a celebration as opposed to the "rolling on the ground, skidding over tarpaulin, climbing over sunshades, stepping on the royalty and to mosh-pit with your family" celebration. I liked the roar and jump. No, I didn't like the sobbing part - it got only better when Rafa crooked his arm over him (and didn't we all sob?).

What can I say? This dude Roger is an emotional guy. The more he contains himself on court - and does he contain! - with that characteristic stoic'ness of his...the worse it gets afterwards. Fed sure has a on-court persona - to direct all that energy inwards to focus his mind, body and intellect. Curious specimen. He mumbled something to Andy and it didn't come off well for some folks.

I say, they should've done the Yannick Noah thing...open for all pandemonium would have been better. That way it would have been a better spectacle. Imagine Laver getting jostled around and Andy trying to save him along with Pete? Bloody English.

Or like USO, a big cardboard check would have been engaging to look at and both would have been preoccupied with the arithmetic involved in adding that to their savings account while Dick Enberg was blathering inanities. Everyone would have been pleased. Bloody English!

Boy, ain't that the truth Triple Fedfan. Every little thing, no matter how insignificant, is dissected to madness.

He shouldn't have said this, he shouldn't have said that. He shouldn't have hit this, he shouldn't have hit that. Heck, I even saw some ridiculous posts where Roddick's tactic of serving into Fed's body was deemed unsavory.

I wonder when tennis fans became so ludicrous.

LOL--U are on a roll Triple fedfan. Indeed. LOL!

Sally, really, who cares? He was flustered because he was overwhelemed by his accomplishment & I think he really felt sorry for Roddick cos he remembered how he was gutted last year. He even told McEnroe that may be he should have tried to win in 3 so that Andy & the crowd wouldn't feel so bad. That, I think, said it all.

Remember also that he said that his head was still spinning & he couldn't quite digest what just happened yet. After all, this was the first time he reached #15 & dethroned Sampras. He is entitled.

i was taking up for roger not putting him down

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

It's funny that after all this GOAT debate (powered by Federer's rise - nobody was discussing this in the Hewitt-Safin-Kuerten era), thousand of opinions, analysis and critics, I guess we can say that it remains just one common conclusion: there an elite club of four challengers: Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer.

I'm sorry the repetition: an error in my computer.