Morning, Guys. I'm up and watching. Hope you're well!

Well scrolling back through everyone im glad that im only a huge fan of the WTA! I think Roger and Rafa are too much of classy champions to overstate or exagerate their injuries, i do find it odd though that Bodo says Rafa won due to Soderlings injury when i watched that match and that seemed the most obvious form of gamesmanship all tournament. While its true that Roger could have been perhaps more gracious in defeat, as a fan of Serena who is not know for her tact in post-match pressers i should probably stay out of that one!
Anyways hope Bepa and Serena win today and that its Rafa/ReRe lifting the trophies come the weekend!

Go Pironkova and Kvitova!

Bepa needs to be very careful because the hot for a moment players have prove they're fully capable of taking out good players.

First chance I'm getting to see Pironkova. She doesn't look like she'd have much of a power game, but she's using Bepa's pace and cracking winners.

Pironkova up a break. Serving 4-2 in the first set.

Roger Federer represents exactly how an athelete should hold himself. He is by far the best role model in all of sports. HE is the reason I enjoy tennis, and i'm very certain I am not the only one. I am ashamed of the reporters and fans who can talk badly about someone as classy and respectful as any athlete out there. Federer has given so much to the game of tennis, and this is how you show appreciation when he has one bad year. The funny thing is, for any other athlete, this would be a sensational year. I feel sick after reading this artical, shame on all of you.

one stat jumped out at me.

RF won 1 out of 8

you can't continuously play safe on BPs and then expect your opponent to implode. He creates the BPs and then play safe! The other coaches and team are noticing this. So they are telling their players to be agressive on their BPs since they know RF is 9 out of 10 times going to just put the ball in play and not attack!

Is there any stats/ranking as to where the top players rank on BP conversion? RF will be way down on that list for sure.

@Flyer 12.35
Word!

Roger lost a few matches, it happens. There is no reason to panic. I also am ashamed to admit to one poster that no, I didn't say all the nice things I wanted to say about how Berdych played. I have been waiting for him to get it together every since he took out Fed at the Olympics, you could see the potential. Everyone keeps acting as if he is some player from the Challengers. He has always had the talent, and I was thrilled to see it yesterday. It had nothing to do with wanting Roger to lose, just wanted to see him overcome and make that big break. I hope this bodes well for him going forward. I saw it coming all year long. He did well at the French and some other tournaments. I hope that Ana C also gains some confidence from his struggles and breakthrough, and that it is not short lived.

It's amazing how much trashing Fed's receiving for simply stating that he has some injuries that are affecting his movement. I think anyone who knows tennis and knows Fed would concur that his movement is off. As for Pete's analysis, that "his knees locked up and he more or less waved at the ball" (on the breaker in the last game) being a result of Fed's nerve; I couldn't disagree more. Your description Pete, actually sounds exactly like someone with a bad back trying to play a point. Fed's play right now reminds me a lot of his play in most of 2008. He lost to Djokovich at the Aussie, Rafa at the French, and of course the classic Wimbledon final. Many writers and commentators wrote him off then--"he'll never win another slam, he never break Pete's record," etc. Turns out he had mono and a bad back and after healing went on to win 4 of the next 6 slams ... gee, maybe he was injured, maybe we should believe him this time too.
Many of the comments here are mentioning the double standard applied to Fed and Rafa--it couldn't be more clear than right now. In 2009, Rafa started #1 and won the Aussie, destroyed eveyone in the clay court season (except for Fed)and was easily mowing down everyone at the French. In his last match before Sod, he destroyed Hewitt and announced that he never felt better physically and was totally injury free. After losing to Sod (where he showed no sign of injury, just being outplayed) he suddenly announces his knees are so bad he has to take 2 months off. The press accepted this without question despite zero evidence of this injury in the previous 6 months when he was easily beating everyone.
Apparently Fed doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
Cut the man some slack. He's the greatest athlete of the last decade, he has conducted himself in a nearly perfect sportsmanlike fashion throughout his career, and I believe the man is allowed to mention injuries that are affecting his play.

It is simple - Federer lost because of Nike's "Write Your Future" ad curse.....not only did all the football players in the ad have their world cup dreams shattered (or get excluded from their teams i.e. Ronaldinho) but also non-soccer personalities associated with the ad met their share of defeat - in our case, unfortunately - Federer. Exception being Kobe, who won the NBA before the add went out. Thankfully Nadal wasn't featured - so we can hope to see him in the Wimbledon finals at least.

The fact that a good number of posters think that Pete (Bodo) has always hated Federer and can't say a single good thing about him, while a similar number think that Pete is had crowned him the GOAT and is hopelessly biased in his favor, tells me that Pete must be doing something right!

Geellis- Is there anyone on the planet who is seriously arguing that Federer has NOT declined since four years ago? You might as well keep insisting that the earth revolves around the sun. Talk about straw men.

As a big Nadal (Soderling-squashing) fan, the comments here re Federer and how he is being challeneged by the big hitters in Berdych and Soderling, Delpo, etc. is a joke.

Before he lost to IKEA man at RG, Federer took his shoe and slapped Soderling's VIKING FACE 12 times in a row. He had a 8-0 record against Berdych and had double bagel sets against Delpo at the AO.

The power hitters epicly failed against Federer so these are not the kind of players that worry him. The ones that beat him even when he was at his best were the ones that took him out of his comfort zone in Nadal, Murray and even Nalbandian to an extent.

Alexis, stop your wailing about Rafa getting a "free pass" from the press everytime. You losers have to always prop your idol against someone else when he loses. There should always be a target for your idol's below-par performance. It's people like you who led Roger to believe he was invincible. So shut your pie hole already!

Geelis@6:08 am:
-----
Roger and Rafa's injuries are treated differently because the former has made a career of downplaying his injuries and the latter has tended to be open/honest about them. When Fed had mono, he spoke very little about this and continually said it had no impact upon his performance. Various of his fans on this blog strongly supported the Fed's refusal at that time to blame his losses, including his '08 AO semi loss to Djoko, on mono. And now, these same fans, yourself included, ask why the media treats alleged claims of injuries by the two players differently. Again, Rafa's team has always been candid about his injuries. Roger, not so much. And make no mistake. That air of invincibility, of invulnerability, has been of significant importance to Roger's success over the years so it was quite logical for him to cultivate and maintain that impression in the locker-room. You cannot then blame the press for doubting talks of injuries from the man, who in some 895 (approx. MA) matches has NEVER ONCE defaulted from a match citing injury. Under the circumstances, it seems more likely that Roger is overstating the injury than that it significantly hampered his performance yesterday, especially given how well most of you thought he looked during his previous two matches.
-------
The essential logic here that because Federer has always "downplayed" (and you will see why I have downplayed within inverted commas later in my post) his injuries in the past it is likely he is overstating his injuries in this case does not quite compute for me. In fact, I come to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., because Federer hardly ever mentions his injuries as a factor, it must have been a significant factor this time. Case in point - After the AO 2008 SF, Federer made it a point to say mono or not he would have lost because Djokovic just flat out beat him. I think it goes back to my earlier comment on a different thred that Federer calls it as he sees it - If he thinks he just got outplayed, injury or not, thats what he'll say, and if he thinks injury was a factor in the outcome of a match, thats what he'll say. And in this case, thats what he did. In other words, its not about whether he "downplayed" injuries or was not "candid" about them, it is really about whether he, in his mind, believed they were a factor or not. That said, even if he thought injuries were a factor, should he have mentioned them? Well, thats a different question altogether that has been beaten to death here :). Anyway, just wanted to point out that a different conclusion could be reached with the same events you've described. To each his/her own I guess.

Pete,

It's understandable that Fed behaved in a way he's never done in the past; May be he's not able to digest the fact that his over powering years were gone; I think anybody in his position would have done the same. It's just the heat of the moemnt; But he has the wisest Tennis brain and irrespective of his age (29), he will show the world one final classic exhibition of Tennis, win a Slam and prove the world why he's been regarded as the GOAT soon.

vera victorious, indeed.

yay, vera. you can do this! :D

Well, this Fed fan takes some consolation from the fact that I was pretty sure Roger would not win this year, and pretty sure Rafa would. And despite Roger’s absence, this FOE will not sit out the rest of the tournament; in fact, I’ll be glued to the tube. In fact, I may enjoy it more with no dog (or perhaps 4) in the fight. :)

"The fact that a good number of posters think that Pete (Bodo) has always hated Federer and can't say a single good thing about him, while a similar number think that Pete is had crowned him the GOAT and is hopelessly biased in his favor, tells me that Pete must be doing something right!"

Christopher: it's a classic example of the phenomenon known as the "hostile media effect". I've seen some posts written by Pete as well as Steve, where Roger fans read the piece as biased against Roger while Rafa fans read the same piece as biased against Rafa!

So S&V didn't show up for their press interview (and were fined $4,000). Way to go gals! Maybe this will be a trend. :)

For any1 who says fed is inferior to nadal should analyse their h2h stats not just look at them. By analysing the stats you will see that rafa is only superior to fed on clay but not in tennis but fed has a slight edge anywhere else becoz of rafa not being good enough on other surfaces. Take any1 who is also in the GOAT debate and put them in fed's position and I'm sure they would all have almost the same h2h with nadal if they made it to those many clay finals while nadal fails to make the same finals anywhere else...

I have been reading Tennis magazine for FOREVER. Peter is one my all-time favorite writers! Love his reporting....!!!!!

"So S&V didn't show up for their press interview (and were fined $4,000). Way to go gals! Maybe this will be a trend. :)"

Ross, lol. Too funny. :)

CL, if you are around......I think you has talk too much (page 1) Nadal has his knee injury from Wimbledon 07. After AO 08 he got worst and worst and in RG 09 both knees were in horrible conditions.
He has proof from doctors, it's not a joke and after finish Wimbledon he is going through a strong treatment with a famous doctor that he's taking care with many soccer players and great results with knees injuries

This is an interesting topic. One, I do think the rest of the field is catching up to Roger — like it did for every other superstar in the past — and he doesn't like it. I wouldn't, either; it means you are getting up there. Two, he is, what, 28? Playing as many years on the professional men's tour — or women's for that matter — takes its toll. The body gets beat up. I imagine what he is suffering might by an accumulation of all the injuries. Did he use the mono excuse — good reason — in 2008 (I believe) as much as he could have? Three, perhaps the "double standard" is real because Roger has been on top so long and Rafa (I call him the Bludgeonmaster because he beats the ball into submission!) has been chasing him. If Roger is truly on the downswing of his career — hey, it happens to the best of them — and Rafa is heading even higher, that may change. All the talent in the world won't overcome a body breaking down. A final thought: I remember when Chris Evert would lose to Martina over and over and one reporter made the observation that Chris never played her best against Martina. Her reply: Martina never let her play her best.

Pete,

You seem to know a lot about writing obituaries of Federer. With your head
firmly planted in Nadal's a**, you can't bring yourself up to say what is
needed to be said about Nadal. I think Tennis magazine should take a close
look at writers like you and see if you are over the hill, clearly biased,
and prone to fits of shameless self-promotion. May be it is time for you to
re-assess just like it is time for Tennis magazine to re-assess. I am still
waiting for you take a clear stand on Serena. You may have Bill Clinton's
ability with words but that comes with a price: lack of credibility.

On reading some of the comments (not read all of them, though), it seems to me that a few people are unaware that Roger has actually had a chronic back problem for quite a few years (he suffered back troubles during the 2003 Wimbledon tournament). Up until 18/20 months ago, he has been able to manage it fairly OK without it having much impact on his game. More recently, it seems to have been affecting him rather more frequently and to a greater degree than before. However, unlike some other players and their injuries, he doesn't talk about it before tournaments (that would just give ammunition to his opponents), he has very rarely called for the trainer or taken MTOs, doesn't clutch at whatever part of his body is giving him pain during matches, and has never ever retired from a match. Maybe this has led people, who are not that interested in Roger and so don't actually know very much about him, to state with seeming conviction that he's never injured and so disbelieve him when he does say he has a slight problem in his back/thigh, etc. After losses, he's asked by the press as to why he's playing pants, but is not expected to tell the truth and is ripped to shreds when he does?! Is he never allowed to admit that he's got a physical problem then? When exactly would be the right time to do this? Before, during or after a tournament? He's really in a "damned if he is, and damned if he's not" position.

What Roger needs now is a good holiday with plenty of rest and rehabilitation.

And yes, Berdych played an excellent match (of which, in the BBC interview I saw on TV, Roger gave him much credit)!

My 2-cents worth: I did not feel that Fed was playing good even when he won against Melzer in straight. His movement seem restricted, and his shots lacked zip. So, when the poll was taken about who was the most dangerous --- I was in the minority that voted Berdych.

The reason for that vote, in addition to Fed's lacklustre play was the FO performance of Berdych and a comment made by JMac at the FO. Before the SF, he compred Berdych to Lendl and thought that Berdych may follow Lendl's path by becoming a champion somewhat later than typical.

By the way, Fed had the thigh wrap from the second round I think. So, something about some issues were already known.

bmars250 at 10.41 pm: anyone who knows about tennis will agree about the nuances of the head-to-head and also that Rafa's overall achievements aren't comparable to Roger's. But frankly I'm a little fed up of people claiming that the H2H is completely meaningless. The fact is, it's 3-3 on hard-courts (2-1 to Rafa in hard-court finals) and 2-1 in Roger's favour on grass (which is a small sample anyway - and in 2006 most people were astonished that Rafa even made it to the Wimby final).

Also, if you count from 2007 onwards and look at all the hard-court Slams and hard-court Masters 1000s played during that time, you'll find that Roger has made it to 9 finals and Rafa has made it to 8. Hardly a substantial difference there, or grounds to claim that "Nadal fails to make finals outside clay".

You'd be much better off simply pointing out Roger's overall record on all surfaces compared to Rafa's overall record on all surfaces. Then there would be no argument about the former's achievements being stronger. But the head-to-head is what it is, and the two biggest reasons for the 14-7 are that 1) Rafa's game is a difficult match-up for Roger's, and 2) Rafa's mental strength, which a lot of other players lacked when they got into potentially winning positions against Roger.

Jai, 11:39.

Well articulated.

Of course, you were responding to an argument that had no basis in actual facts.

Cahill knew of Fed's condition when he put more checks in Fed's "tale of the tape" but then chose Berdych to win.

in RF's case, and in all others, physical condition affects play, it's just that simple.

Jai,
With respect to hard court tournaments - really depends on how far back you go. If you go back to 2005 around the time Nadal became #2(around the Bangkok timeframe)to 2008, including the USO, federer has been to 25 hard-court finals, winning 21 and Nadal to 9, winning 6. That's a pretty significant difference (data from atpworldtour.com). I agree with your points around what has contributed to the H2H, but if we are being objective, we cannot discount the fact that Federer has been good enough to make the finals of many clay tournaments both he and Nadal played in since they became 1-2 (2005 on), while Nadal started to reciprocate that on hard courts only starting late 2007 when the TMF period started to end - this is a significant contributir to the H2H as well. Its very simple - If that was not the case, the H2H would have been reversed long before Nadal became #1 in 2008 given the proportion of hard court tournaments on the ATP tour.

I agree with InVizible on page 5. Federer in the first two rounds never mentioned anything about any injuries. No mention of them at the pressers vs Falla or Melzter.

Where did these injuries come from all of a sudden when he lost?

TW . . . .

Where certain knuckleheads try to argue away a losing 7-14 head-to-head record, including a losing 2-6 head-to-head record in the majors.

What a joke.

"we cannot discount the fact that Federer has been good enough to make the finals of many clay tournaments both he and Nadal played in since they became 1-2 (2005 on), while Nadal started to reciprocate that on hard courts only starting late 2007 when the TMF period started to end."

Agastya: not discounting this at all. Like I said, any serious tennis fan must attempt to understand the nuances of the H2H instead of just yelling "Whoa! Rafa has beaten Fed 14 out of 21 times. That means he's better!"

"...if that was not the case, the H2H would have been reversed long before Nadal became #1 in 2008 given the proportion of hard court tournaments on the ATP tour."

Not so sure about it being reversed, given the nature of the match-up. Even in 2006, which was Roger's greatest year (and probably the greatest year for any male player in the Open era), Rafa ran him close on surfaces where Roger was clearly the superior player. He won the Dubai final, took a set off Roger at Wimby (after making a very improbable run to the final) and lost 6-4, 7-5 in the YEC, in what was one of their highest-quality matches. That tells us something about the trickiness of the match-up.

My point is simply this: if you want to make the case that Roger's overall achievements are superior (which, again, I completely agree with), there are better ways of doing it than to hypothesise about what the H2H might have been if they had played more often on hard-court and grass.

manuelsantanafan,
I am not sure if you were referring to my post @12:16 pm in your "knucklehead" comment above. If you were not, please ignore this post. If you were, I respectfully ask you to refrain from any personal insults - that's against the rules of this blog and would like to bring this to moderator's attention.

As for the content of your comment, again, if you were referring to my post - I was not arguing away anything - of course the H2H is what it is and I already noted that I agreed with Jai's comments on what contributed to it. I just also feel Rafa's clay dominance, Federer's ability to get to clay finals since Rafa became #2 (2005)and Rafa's inability to do that on hard courts to the same extent as Federer on clay until the late 2007 timeframe is also a factor. And that is based on data publicly available on atpworldtour.com. If you disagree, thats fine, but no reason to insult or disparage just becasue you don't share my opinion.

Jai,
Agree with your comments - Not a big fan of hypothesizing on "what-if's" myself (hence stay as far away as possible from cross-era GOAT debates!!)...just like to analyze contributing factors to a certain outcome, and on that front I think we are on the same page :)

Falstaff:

To die is to be a counterfeit, for he is but the counterfeit of
a man who hath not the life of a man; but to counterfeit dying,
when a man thereby liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true
and perfect image of life indeed. The better part of valor is
discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life.

Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 5, scene 4, 115–121

agastya:

Bring anything you want to the moderators' attention.

What I see you doing is picking certain time periods in a biased manner to further arguments about Federer's superiority on hard courts.

If you want to go back to 2005, when Rafa was 19 years old, why don't you provide us with Federer's record on hard courts when he was 19 and 20 years old.

Until then, yapping about Rafa's record on hard courts when he was 19 have little, if any, significance.

"in RF's case, and in all others, physical condition affects play, it's just that simple."

YES!! Thank you, JD Lewis! :)

At 19 years old, Rafa had been on the main tour for 4 years; while Fed at 19 had only been on the tour for 2 years - slight difference there. To be strictly fair, imo, one should really compare using number of years on tour: Rafa at 19 with Roger at 21. Rafa matured much earlier than Roger, or indeed most players.

Pete is secretly in love with Fed and takes the little shots at him because he is too macho to admit it. Seriously, I think Fed was injured - his shots or movement were not as crisp as normal. The injuries may be age related and we may be with 2-3 years of the end, but I think and hope he can pull off a couple more slams.

Bird played great, but Fed in his prime would have won in straight sets today. A slightly off Fed almost won.

Seriously again, I do think Pete has something against Fed - Pete likes the boring 50's style Jack Krammer or Pete Sampras man's man kind of player. Closest thing out there today is Rafa whom Pete loves. Fed is cool, has a personality, speaks 5 languagues and is the most fun to watch of any player I ever seen.

Of course, Rafa matured more quickly than did Federer, which is an area in which Rafa is superior to Federer.

And Federer is superior to Rafa in many areas.

To best compare the careers of those two players, one should wait until their careers have ended, not manipulate statistics in a biased manner.

But, there are no rules against posting ridiculous data manipulations. Just, don't expect to convince anyone with a clue.

msf: "What I see you doing is picking certain time periods in a biased manner to further arguments about Federer's superiority on hard courts."

Yes, I can see quite clearly that's what you see... :) That's fine...No more on this topic from me to you... take care... :)

TennisFedFan:

I'm not sure if an in-his-prime Fed would have straight-setted Birdman.

However, that version of Fed would probably not have needed more than four sets to win.

I agree that injuries affected Fed's performance yesterday.

And, for what it is worth (which is virtually nothing), I don't believe that Fed was in the wrong for bringing up his injuries.

I believe that, if Fed can find a few multiple-month periods where he is not affected by niggling injuries, he should be able to win 2-4 more majors.

And I hope he is able to find that health cuz I believe he has the most well-rounded game of anyone on the ATP and I enjoy watching that type of game.

Hmm. I saw Roger's post match interview and don't see what the fuss is about. Berdych obviously played well, and all credit to him, but Federer hasn't seemed right physically all tournament. His movement (and serve) haven't been as impressive as usual. I fear for the people who didn't realise Federer was being sarcastic when he made those comments about Rafa, Andy and Novak, I really do. That includes Bodo and Wertheim as well as some of the posters on here. I've never been a Federer fan, mainly because he had an unpleasant habit of beating Marat Safin (my favourite ATP player) almost every time they met :( But I admire his game and think he (and Rafa) are great ambassadors for tennis. I also enjoy watching Nadal play and like that he's worked so hard to improve his game. They both have their faults, obviously, but they're both great champions all the same. As far as I'm concerned, Roger can say whatever he likes and that won't change my opinion of him. Same goes for Rafa. The way I see it, their different approaches to post match interviews are just different. Neither approach is better than the other IMO.

Why compare Nadal to Roger? It isn't fair to either. The first still has a lot to prove while the latter has proven that all records can be broken. When Nadal reaches 29, we will have time to compare their career and decide who really is the best. I am not expecting these guys to be examplary after a loss; I just hope they get over it as quickly as possible and rebound. Cheers to my fellow Fed fans.

Why would someone need to read a carefully prepared cocktail of selective quotes and reporters speculations instead of going to the source - press-conference itself? It is obvious, that journalists are selling controversy. It is dull for them to write that player handles defeat with dignity. So they twist and lie. Nothing new here.

Berdych would be better served not to be baited by them. If he'd listened Federer's press-conference himself rather than buying their interpretation, he would react differently.

mick:

I agree with you and others that there has been considerable baiting going on.

Especially sad that the baiting is designed to take advantage of Federer, who, I believe, has generally been helpful to the press and very giving of his time with fans and spectators.

I'm just thinking, how does age actually affect your tennis game, what part of the game would it affect the most? Is it physical, psychological, mental, technique, planning-wise? I think it's amazing that at age 29, he's still in the top 5 and playing occasionally brilliant tennis! Give the guy a break! He's a great champion, and every human being is flawed in some ways! No matter if his injuries are fake or real, it is not a sin no?

Also, should Fed take an extended period of time to retool his game? I think a two-handed backhand is not impossible. He said he will play till 2012? Also, he DID look out of shape (his tummy) in this tournament. I think it's time to leave the family for a while and focus on himself and train harder. He has to realize he cannot do everything at the same time. Maybe his overwhelming success has lead him to believe that, but no one can.

I'm enjoying free Wifi, but can't be bothered to read comments if this is 6 pages of the "Fedal War".

I kinda wish Fed would quit wearing this gold-embroidered stuff now, though. It's starting to get unseemly.

Alexis 06/30/2010 at 03:02 PM

And despite Fed's obvious disappointment.... he still waited for Berdych so they could walk off the court together. That says it all about the man you ever need know. What a champion.

Wow, where I'm from this is known as "common courtesy".

"And despite Fed's obvious disappointment.... he still waited for Berdych so they could walk off the court together" tina

Yes, what Soderling did not do...he left the court very fast.

Federer is not the GOAT.
Federer has almost always lost to Nadal; and is sure to lose to healthy nadal .
Federer has conducted himself magnificently ;
Federer has the widest range of strokes, excellent serve, the finest backhand, great inside out forehand, etc.
But federer is lacking in power.
And federer appears weak against nadal, soderling, del potro, berdych;
Federe is not the best palyer of today’s time.
Sure, federer has won 16 slams in the weak era of roddick, davydenko, Gonzales, Hewitt, safin, etc.
Don’t call federer the GOAT when he is clearly inferior to nadal;

"And despite Fed's obvious disappointment.... he still waited for Berdych so they could walk off the court together" tina

"Yes, what Soderling did not do...he left the court very fast."

maybe his blister was hurting!! hee hee!!

Wow, Tennis Observer....your observation makes absolutely NO NO NO sense at all
please compare Nadal to Federer when he has 16 Grand Slams....haha
and please pray his knee will hold on....even with 4 more French Open (I assume) and maybe 4 more non-clay GS in him....he will still be short

Fed, I'm too sad. You lost. But you are my heart, and forever my no.1. Try in another tournament, Fed. You are the greatest player of all time

Well, Roger, "This Great Swiss", you'll always have Enberg. Enjoy!

07/01/2010 at 07:57 PM
Just want to say, I totally agree with your post! Tnahk you, and I am looking forward to the next couple of years of great Tennis Matches. Nadal does bring a whole lot of excitement to his game. Sometimes they are very intense and hard to watch tho, but the big serve matches of the big guys can get pretty boring, so I'll take Nadal's style anyday. Hope he can stay healthy.

Peter,

Why is it when Fed isn't healthy and loses, you call him a coward and and pronounce him finished, but when Nadal loses and says he is hurt (which is almost EVERY time he loses) you give him a pass?

You are a gutless clown Bodo. Gutless.

If Federer's called the greatest enough times,
his fans call him the victim (treated so unfairly).
Since when were other players allowed to talk about their injuries?
Federer's too special?
You have Roddick, who was injured & overweight when he played
in the years 2004-2008. He pretended that Federer
blew him off the court because Roddick wanted to get away with
being a lazy loser. Nothing but a ball basher & one-dimensional.
Pat McEnroe was nicely paid to cover up
& ignore the unclassy side of Federer
by calling him a man of integrity in the 2005 Masters Cup.
Yesterday, McEnroe was so bitter when Federer interview with sore loser excuses
was exposed.

Bodo called him physically unfit in 2005 & John McEnroe said Federer was underperforming in 2007
just because he stunk in Indian Wells & Miami.
The BS about Federer demokishing everyone in Slams worked for the delusional fanatics.
Nalbandian gave up with "a coward excuse" in the French Open to make Federer
look amazing. Nadal couldn't handle a long match after the umpire stole the 3rd set from his Miami final with Federer.
Falla, Andreev, Haas, Del Potro, Berdych, Roddick, even Nadal dumped leads.
In the past, how easy it was for Federer to win when he had a joke
draw & a week's rest at the rain-delayed Wimbledon "classy tournament".
Cry me a river, sore losers...
(Blind-worshipping Federer fan boys). Baaah baaaaah.

The King is Dead. Long Live the King. Surely Nadal reigns supreme now and for as long as his body can take the punishment he gives it. Roger will never win another major. It was a great run but the end has come. He's aging, he's ailing, he's married, he's parenting. The Fed express has expired.

You media idiots get a life and stop slandering Roger Federer and stop scratching Nadal's a$$ !

Tina wrote on 07/01/2010 at 05:25 PM "I kinda wish Fed would quit wearing this gold-embroidered stuff now, though. It's starting to get unseemly."

It was unseemly on day one.