Roger Federer

[cr7torossi]

Great match. Nadal as modest as ever, deserving champion.

Vamos Rafa!

[Teso Dos Bichos]

It's always sad for any sport when a 'big hitter' beats the better player.

[benito camelpene]

I'm not a big tennis fan but that was a fantastic match to watch. Absolutely riveting stuff!

Congrats to Nadal..a deserving champion.

[cr7torossi]

It's always sad for any sport when a 'big hitter' beats the better player.

teso demonstrating my Ronaldo-Messi analogue. Nice:D

[MtP07]

Well done to Rafa. He really deserved to win this tournament. That was probably the best match I've ever seen.

[Achtung]

That one took me back to the heyday of men's tennis in the early 90s. Great match, great persistence from Nadal after it looked like he'd bottled it. I'm a Federer fan as well, but there's no denying that Nadal hit the key shots when it mattered. That one forehand right down the line past Roger was just about perfect.

[sdotsom]

Best tennis match ever. Here in St. Louis, they split screened a Cardinals v Cubs match to keep showing the match. I didn't get to see the last 3 games of the match as I was at the baseball game, but that had to be the greatest tennis match I've ever seen. It was incredible.

[Twix]

Unfortunately, I missed most of the game, but I caught an extensive highlight reel on the beeb's iplayer. Must say, it looked like an amazing game. I hope all Wimbledon finals are that good.

Intrigued to see how Federer bounces back from that.

[Bex79]

Brilliant match, best i've been at without a doubt.

So Pleased for Rafa because I love him and somehow can't warm to Federer(its the opposite with almost everybody i know though... ). Was there with my lovely 12 year old niece who now wants to marry Nadal. :D

I generally love Wimbledon, been a good tourney this year considering I quite like both the winners.

Will be interesting to see where Fed goes from here now.

[johno]

Yeah but Federer is making a mess of those little dinks over the net quite a bit.

My rough count was 7 or 8 drop shots into the net with most if not all of them going into the net cord (the very top)

Suppose so. Just from what I know they are both incredibly well-rounded, but Nadal is a little mroe power and Federer a little more technique. Would that be correct?

By 'polished' I meant how Federer plays - he reminds me a bit of a tennis version of Kaka... only very, very consistent.

You've got that just about right. The overpowering thing with Nadal is not simply how hard he hits his balls, he hits them with a great deal of topspin which makes the ball rush onto the player off the surface and the balls are generally heavy or difficult to impart your own spin on.

It's always sad for any sport when a 'big hitter' beats the better player.

That wasn't the case this time. Federer beat himself. He had at least 6 break chances on Nadal's second serve. Playing at anywhere near his best he'd have put away 3-4 of them and this match would have been done in 4 sets.

Overall, I thought Nadal played close to his best while Federer let himself down - which is what made for a special match. I don't think for one second that on any surface other than clay there is a tennis player that can match Federer. That man who can beat Federer on grass or on a hard court, well his mum's not been born yet, I'm afraid. I thought the nonsense from the NBC commentators about Nadal having surpassed Federer was a crock of shit. I can't believe McEnroe would say that. Federer in my books has already surpassed many of the greats and if he plays for another 2-3 years he'll be number one. Its so bad that his greatness works against him.

He lost to Nadal on CLAY, got whooped and everyone jumped at it saying his time is done. I guess when you win so much people want to see the back of you, I just think its not been justified.

[cr7torossi]

That wasn't the case this time. Federer beat himself. He had at least 6 break chances on Nadal's second serve. Playing at anywhere near his best he'd have put away 3-4 of them and this match would have been done in 4 sets.

Overall, I thought Nadal played close to his best while Federer let himself down - which is what made for a special match. I don't think for one second that on any surface other than clay there is a tennis player that can match Federer. That man who can beat Federer on grass or on a hard court, well his mum's not been born yet, I'm afraid. I thought the nonsense from the NBC commentators about Nadal having surpassed Federer was a crock of shit. I can't believe McEnroe would say that. Federer in my books has already surpassed many of the greats and if he plays for another 2-3 years he'll be number one. Its so bad that his greatness works against him.

He lost to Nadal on CLAY, got whooped and everyone jumped at it saying his time is done. I guess when you win so much people want to see the back of you, I just think its not been justified.

Complete bullshit there, you should probably go back and see last year's French(in which Federer again had a clutch of break points, none of which he could convert mainly because of Nadal's mental toughness) or Wimbledon in which Federer again had to rely on his serve to win him tiebreaks to stay in the match before Nadal bottled it in the 5th after having chances to take a decisive lead. There was a reason why Nadal was even odds even before the start of this year's Wimbledon.

Djokovic has more than matched Federer on hardcourts over the last year and if Djokovic wins the US, there won't be many who can deny that Djokovic would have taken over the mantle of the best player on faster surfaces.

Federer's greatness does not work against him, what does is that most of his GSs have been won against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. If he cannot dominate Nadal and Djokovic for atleast a couple of seasons, there is no way he is going to be called the best ever.

Sorry, you have to beat the best to be called the best, not transitional fodder and one-dimensional players like Hewitt.

[johno]

Complete bullshit there, you should probably go back and see last year's French(in which Federer again had a clutch of break points, none of which he could convert mainly because of Nadal's mental toughness) or Wimbledon in which Federer again had to rely on his serve to win him tiebreaks to stay in the match before Nadal bottled it in the 5th after having chances to take a decisive lead. There was a reason why Nadal was even odds even before the start of this year's Wimbledon.

You can't compare break chances in the French final to break chances at Wimbledon. Rafa has a ridiculous advantage on that surface - he's a phenomenal athlete one of the best of all time to play tennis. I don't think anyone expected Federer to beat Nadal at the French. I expected a good final and I would not have been flabbergasted if Fed won, but Nadal was always the favourite there.

As for Federer having to rely on his serve, that's the weakest point possible. Everyone serves in tennis. Not having a good serve or a dominating serve is inexusable for Nadal and he's worked on it tirelessly this last year. You can't fault Federer for having a great serve. How many greats didn't? I mean you say it like Federer's groundstrokes are flawed??? He's not Sampras, he'd wipe the floor with Pistol Pete who was polished as far as a serve and volleyer goes but has nothing on Fed.

Djokovic has more than matched Federer on hardcourts over the last year and if Djokovic wins the US, there won't be many who can deny that Djokovic would have taken over the mantle of the best player on faster surfaces.

Over the last year. Federer won 5 straight wimbledon titles. That's incredibly hard. He's almost made the sport boring with his consistency and excellence. If he was being matched he wouldn't have dominated the grand slams like he has.

Federer's greatness does not work against him, what does is that most of his GSs have been won against the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. If he cannot dominate Nadal and Djokovic for atleast a couple of seasons, there is no way he is going to be called the best ever.

Sorry, you have to beat the best to be called the best, not transitional fodder and one-dimensional players like Hewitt.

Who did Sampras beat in the latter half of his career? How many greats were there for him to beat? Roddick has underachieved for his talent but that's not to say he's not a very difficult player to beat. How do you beat someone with that serve? Fed has dominated what was in front of him. I don't think you can take a handful of tournaments out of 5 years and point to those and say he's not a dominant force. That's like saying Arsenal won a couple of doubles so United aren't the dominant force of the premiership era.

[Motterman]

I actually watched the Federer-Nadal final and it was very exciting, despite the rain delays.

I thought Federer didn't play his best, while Nadal did - even though he choked at a couple of key moments which let Federer back in to the match.

[cr7torossi]

You can't compare break chances in the French final to break chances at Wimbledon. Rafa has a ridiculous advantage on that surface - he's a phenomenal athlete one of the best of all time to play tennis. I don't think anyone expected Federer to beat Nadal at the French. I expected a good final and I would not have been flabbergasted if Fed won, but Nadal was always the favourite there.

As for Federer having to rely on his serve, that's the weakest point possible. Everyone serves in tennis. Not having a good serve or a dominating serve is inexusable for Nadal and he's worked on it tirelessly this last year. You can't fault Federer for having a great serve. How many greats didn't? I mean you say it like Federer's groundstrokes are flawed??? He's not Sampras, he'd wipe the floor with Pistol Pete who was polished as far as a serve and volleyer goes but has nothing on Fed.

I don't think for one second that on any surface other than clay there is a tennis player that can match Federer.

Over the last 2 Wimbledons, 4 of the 5 sets which Federer has won against Nadal have been tiebreakers.
What this shows is that (even)on grass, Federer has been finding it difficult to match Nadal on rallies rather than the other way around.

I won't get into the Sampras point which is quite laughable to be honest.



Over the last year. Federer won 5 straight wimbledon titles. That's incredibly hard. He's almost made the sport boring with his consistency and excellence. If he was being matched he wouldn't have dominated the grand slams like he has.

I don't think for one second that on any surface other than clay there is a tennis player that can match Federer.

You are moving goalposts here. What he did before against Roddick and Hewitt before has nothing to do with how he plays against Nadal and Djokovic now who are more than matching him. As I specifically mentioned, over the last year, Djokovic has been as good on faster surfaces


Who did Sampras beat in the latter half of his career? How many greats were there for him to beat? Roddick has underachieved for his talent but that's not to say he's not a very difficult player to beat. How do you beat someone with that serve? Fed has dominated what was in front of him. I don't think you can take a handful of tournaments out of 5 years and point to those and say he's not a dominant force. That's like saying Arsenal won a couple of doubles so United aren't the dominant force of the premiership era.

How many GSs did Sampras win in his latter years. In his younger years and prime, he did beat a fair few all-time top 20 players to win his GSs. The same was true for Borg and Laver who won their GSs against all-timers like Connors, McEnroe, Rosewall and Emerson.
Unless Federer does that, he obviously won't be called the best. Tennis like every other sport has its cycles, men's tennis was in a weak cycle for a fair few years.

[tscboys]

CR7torossi is to Nadal as Sirmanc is to Germany, Blinded by their own bias. Federer didn't play very well, and had he played like he has in the past, would've wiped Nadal off the court. Nadal is a good player, but Federer is a great player, and has proved it with consistency over YEARS. He has dominated like no other in the last few years, and will continue to do so because of how young he still is (26 mind you).

[sdotsom]

Personally, I think it's way to soon to call this the changing of the guard, etc. Nadal had a brilliant run through Wimbledon this year against a Federer who was probably around 85% of his real game. It doesn't really discount anything Nadal's done - but let's not forget, this has been Federer's sport for 5 years now.

3 Aussies
5 Wimbledons
4 US Opens

Nadal still has a way to go to establish himself as a great, rather than a perceived one-court expert. There's no doubt he is not that anymore - his transition to grass the past 2 years has been incredible. But let's see him sustain it. If he can do this next year again, and maybe win a hard court as well, he'll start to at least be in the conversation for me.

[yikchi]

^^
Yeah, I found it ridiculous to hear all the "changing of the guards", "passing the torch" talk the day after Wimbledon. Yes, Nadal beat Federer in 2 GS finals in a row, but it's not like Federer's done, he can still pick up many GS's before all is said and done.

Also, Nadal's style of play is so aggressive and violent... it just seems like his body will be proned to breakdown... I don't want to jinx the guy but he doesn't seem like the type that is built for longevity in the game.

One of my old favorite is Michael Chang, but you know the guy won't have a long career because he would get worn out with his style of play.

[johno]

Over the last 2 Wimbledons, 4 of the 5 sets which Federer has won against Nadal have been tiebreakers.
What this shows is that (even)on grass, Federer has been finding it difficult to match Nadal on rallies rather than the other way around.

Actually what it could mean is that while Nadal has been able to break Federer (that's happened often enough in their last few meetings) he's not been up to scratch in high pressure situations. Nadal is a choker - that 5-2 with the serve is the perfect example. Now he's overcome adversity, but lets not jump to conclusions - suggesting that Nadal has better ground strokes than Federer is getting ahead of yourself.

I won't get into the Sampras point which is quite laughable to be honest.

Yes, laughable. Any how you compare Sampras and Federer be it their style of play, weaknesses, strengths or Grandslams won vs grandslams played; Federer comes out so far on top that the comparison is laughable. I'm sorry.

You are moving goalposts here. What he did before against Roddick and Hewitt before has nothing to do with how he plays against Nadal and Djokovic now who are more than matching him. As I specifically mentioned, over the last year, Djokovic has been as good on faster surfaces

I'm not moving posts. You can't make a sweeping statement saying that Federer isn't by far and away the best in the world and then say the evidence is in 5 tournaments when he's won 12 of the last 20 or so majors contested. That's rediculous.

How many GSs did Sampras win in his latter years. In his younger years and prime, he did beat a fair few all-time top 20 players to win his GSs. The same was true for Borg and Laver who won their GSs against all-timers like Connors, McEnroe, Rosewall and Emerson.
Unless Federer does that, he obviously won't be called the best. Tennis like every other sport has its cycles, men's tennis was in a weak cycle for a fair few years.

Sampras did not win titles against the greats - in fact he's got just about an even split of titles in his career with 8 of them before the halfway mark in his career and 6 of them after it. The only constant threat in his career was Agassi who isn't an all timer.

When its all said and done Nadal will be annointed as the greatest clay court player of all time and one of the greatest period. I think the same will be said for Federer. Fed is also one of the better grass court players in the last half century and he'll be unlikely to get credit for it because Nadal is around. Fed is certainly a much much much more rounded player than Sampras who only made the semis of the french once.

[cr7torossi]

<snip>

Ignorance is bliss.

[cr7torossi]

Anyways, I am done arguing with you on this since like many others, the fact that Federer's game is pleasing to the eye and that he dominated in the weakest era of men's tennis, means that you are drunk on the Federer Kool-Aid.

Actually what it could mean is that while Nadal has been able to break Federer (that's happened often enough in their last few meetings) he's not been up to scratch in high pressure situations. Nadal is a choker - that 5-2 with the serve is the perfect example. Now he's overcome adversity, but lets not jump to conclusions - suggesting that Nadal has better ground strokes than Federer is getting ahead of yourself.


Actually, the same can be said of Federer who had innumerable break points but in FO'07 and Wimbledon'08 and failed miserably.


Yes, laughable. Any how you compare Sampras and Federer be it their style of play, weaknesses, strengths or Grandslams won vs grandslams played; Federer comes out so far on top that the comparison is laughable. I'm sorry.


You are completely blinded by your love for Federer that I am not even going to waste my time here.


I'm not moving posts. You can't make a sweeping statement saying that Federer isn't by far and away the best in the world and then say the evidence is in 5 tournaments when he's won 12 of the last 20 or so majors contested. That's rediculous.


It would be like saying Ronaldinho is the best player in the world while recent evidence clearly demonstrates that is not.


Sampras did not win titles against the greats - in fact he's got just about an even split of titles in his career with 8 of them before the halfway mark in his career and 6 of them after it. The only constant threat in his career was Agassi who isn't an all timer.


One of only 2 players to have a career GS is not an all-timer, the best return of serve ever:rolleyes:
And winning against Becker & co. is much more of an accomplishment winning GSs against 1-dimensional players like Roddick.


When its all said and done Nadal will be annointed as the greatest clay court player of all time and one of the greatest period. I think the same will be said for Federer. Fed is also one of the better grass court players in the last half century and he'll be unlikely to get credit for it because Nadal is around. Fed is certainly a much much much more rounded player than Sampras who only made the semis of the french once.

Obviously, that is no surprise since Federer played a lot on clay in his childhood. His volleying skills are extremely average for one of the better grass court players in the last half century. He, like Nadal, has been helped by the slowing down of the playing surface at SW19.