The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 5, 2009 12:17:25 GMT -5
For those of you near a TV with NBC, turn on Wimbledon NOW.
|
|
afirth
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 289
|
Post by afirth on Jul 5, 2009 12:34:09 GMT -5
That was ridiculous. And amazing.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 5, 2009 13:20:13 GMT -5
Federer is UNREAL!!! Talent is one thing--but the guy just keeps coming and after last year's Wimbledon/Olympics and this year's Austrailian, thought he'd suffer--but he's come back even tougher mentally--and what sets him apart--that is by far the best I've ever seen Andy Roddick play--and he'd have beaten anyone else today--but not Federer.
21 straight Slam Semis---20 of those he's in Finals and 15 Titles. This is the most amazing stat in sports today. Other streaks can be discussed as difficult or even more difficult to break, but the active record that is most dominant and unreal is held by Federer.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 5, 2009 14:12:15 GMT -5
I feel really bad for roddick. That wan an amazing match. I'm sure he's killing himself about losing that second set tie break.
|
|
tlphoya
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 431
|
Post by tlphoya on Jul 5, 2009 14:18:30 GMT -5
The match is scheduled to be replayed on espn classic tomorrow at 9 am, 2 pm and 7 pm.
Unreal. You hate to see anyone lose a match like that.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jul 5, 2009 18:25:03 GMT -5
so what is the exact rule on the tie break? why did they switch back to full games? i HAD to leave during the fourth game of the fifth set and came back at 13-14 of the tie break and had no idea why they were playing full games and not the usual tie break format.
anyway crazy game and funny interview after when Roddick yell about fedderer having five wins already.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,616
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 5, 2009 18:28:24 GMT -5
so what is the exact rule on the tie break? why did they switch back to full games? i HAD to leave during the fourth game of the fifth set and came back at 13-14 of the tie break and had no idea why they were playing full games and not the usual tie break format. anyway crazy game and funny interview after when Roddick yell about fedderer having five wins already. The ultimate set cannot be decided by a tiebreak, but rather must be won by two games.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 5, 2009 19:32:33 GMT -5
I feel really bad for roddick. That wan an amazing match. I'm sure he's killing himself about losing that second set tie break. Actually this might bode well for Andy. Federer is declining and the fear was that just as Andy's rise coincided with Roger's faster and higher rise the same would happen on the other end of their respective careers. So you would have Fed battling for majors instead of cruising through majors while Andy was collecting quarterfinal paychecks. And over the last two years, that's exactly what looked to be happening. But Roddick's playing extremely well this season. He's bagged 14 wins at the majors (second only to Roger) and with Rafa on the shelf and the kids (Murray, Djokovic, and Del Potro) looking like they haven't quite made the jump yet, Andy might have more time than we thought to get that second slam. I really hope he does it.
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Jul 5, 2009 20:04:19 GMT -5
That's as well as Roddick can play, but I just never saw how he was going to break Federer in the 5th set. It's been that way for years. It may look like Roddick, Murray, Djokavic, etc. can finally beat him, but Federer just wins every point and game he has to in all the majors. (Except for that one Australian semi against Djokavic when Roger was sick.)
I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Federer owns the entire sport....except when he plays one guy. When Nadal gets back, I assume the real rivalry will return. It's isn't like Michael Jordan had a team that was his kryptonite. Very odd.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 5, 2009 20:48:00 GMT -5
That's as well as Roddick can play, but I just never saw how he was going to break Federer in the 5th set. It's been that way for years. It may look like Roddick, Murray, Djokavic, etc. can finally beat him, but Federer just wins every point and game he has to in all the majors. (Except for that one Australian semi against Djokavic when Roger was sick.) I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Federer owns the entire sport....except when he plays one guy. When Nadal gets back, I assume the real rivalry will return. It's isn't like Michael Jordan had a team that was his kryptonite. Very odd. Nadal being Fed's kryptonite is overblown. He's built his advantage largely on clay because on Nadal's way up, he couldn't crack a hardcourt final in a slam. Now at his peak, Rafa can play all surfaces. It's almost like Federer gets punished in the argument for being good enough to routinely beat everyone else on clay and bump into Nadal in the final. End of the day, Fed's 5-4 versus Nadal off clay. It's a pet peeve of mine when people say "Nadal is one of the best ever on clay AND he has Fed's number." It's the same argument. It's just counting Nadal's clay prowess in two columns instead of one. Otherwise they're like any other #1s passing each other in the rankings over time.
|
|
|
Post by HoyasAreHungry on Jul 5, 2009 21:19:32 GMT -5
that final was unreal....i really like Roddick and was extremely happy to see his total game coming around to the level it is. Hopefully he keeps up this level. THat being said...Federer...unreal...that guy just plays with such smooth tenacity...roddick had him on the ropes several times and he never seemed to panic only came back with ridiculous shots. gotta hand it to him. glad i watched this match in its entirety
|
|
hoya95
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,445
|
Post by hoya95 on Jul 5, 2009 22:13:37 GMT -5
That's as well as Roddick can play, but I just never saw how he was going to break Federer in the 5th set. It's been that way for years. It may look like Roddick, Murray, Djokavic, etc. can finally beat him, but Federer just wins every point and game he has to in all the majors. (Except for that one Australian semi against Djokavic when Roger was sick.) I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Federer owns the entire sport....except when he plays one guy. When Nadal gets back, I assume the real rivalry will return. It's isn't like Michael Jordan had a team that was his kryptonite. Very odd. Nadal being Fed's kryptonite is overblown. He's built his advantage largely on clay because on Nadal's way up, he couldn't crack a hardcourt final in a slam. Now at his peak, Rafa can play all surfaces. It's almost like Federer gets punished in the argument for being good enough to routinely beat everyone else on clay and bump into Nadal in the final. End of the day, Fed's 5-4 versus Nadal off clay. It's a pet peeve of mine when people say "Nadal is one of the best ever on clay AND he has Fed's number." It's the same argument. It's just counting Nadal's clay prowess in two columns instead of one. Otherwise they're like any other #1s passing each other in the rankings over time. Yeah, but that kind of ignores the arc and progression of Nadal's career. He started out as a clay court specialist who really couldn't touch Federer anywhere else. But he got better and better. First pushing Fed to 4 sets at Wimbledon, then 5 before an injury, then beating him in the best match I've ever seen. Then Nadal got him again on hardcourts in Australia and left Federer in tears. Not saying this as a knock on Roger. It's amazing what Nadal did against Federer when every other player in the sport cannot touch him. At all. And he did it by not being afraid of Federer and by putting in an incredible amount of work to get better. I don't know if Murray, Roddick, Djokavic have the same talent, but they could take a page from Nadal's efforts. I think Roddick is doing that now, but I'm not sure if it's too late or if he'll ever have the return game to pull it off.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 5, 2009 22:51:33 GMT -5
so what is the exact rule on the tie break? why did they switch back to full games? i HAD to leave during the fourth game of the fifth set and came back at 13-14 of the tie break and had no idea why they were playing full games and not the usual tie break format. anyway crazy game and funny interview after when Roddick yell about fedderer having five wins already. The ultimate set cannot be decided by a tiebreak, but rather must be won by two games. This statement covers the courts at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club. However, were the match played in Flushing Meadows, a fifth set tiebreaker would have been played. I'm really bummed that I was driving all morning and missed the match, but planning on taping tomorrow's replay. I really hope this is the start of something good for Andy Roddick -- men's tennis as a whole has had a good year, and I'd love to see him continue to be a big part of it.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 5, 2009 23:45:55 GMT -5
The US Open is actually the only tournament where they play a tiebreaker in the deciding set. Every other tournament just plays on.
Check out the scoreline from this quarterfinal match at the 2003 Australian Open:
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 6, 2009 0:48:00 GMT -5
The US Open is actually the only tournament where they play a tiebreaker in the deciding set. Every other tournament just plays on. Check out the scoreline from this quarterfinal match at the 2003 Australian Open: As I understand it, the tiebreaker only came about as a result of the legendary 1969 duel between 41 year old American Pancho Gonzalez and Charlie Passarell (16 years his junior). Gonzalez won the match, but not before going down 22-24 then 1-6 when he basically threw the second set believing play should be suspended for darkness. Gonzalez then came back the next day and won 16-14, 6-3, 11-9. The total time of the match was 5:12.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 6, 2009 6:33:31 GMT -5
Nadal being Fed's kryptonite is overblown. He's built his advantage largely on clay because on Nadal's way up, he couldn't crack a hardcourt final in a slam. Now at his peak, Rafa can play all surfaces. It's almost like Federer gets punished in the argument for being good enough to routinely beat everyone else on clay and bump into Nadal in the final. End of the day, Fed's 5-4 versus Nadal off clay. It's a pet peeve of mine when people say "Nadal is one of the best ever on clay AND he has Fed's number." It's the same argument. It's just counting Nadal's clay prowess in two columns instead of one. Otherwise they're like any other #1s passing each other in the rankings over time. Yeah, but that kind of ignores the arc and progression of Nadal's career. He started out as a clay court specialist who really couldn't touch Federer anywhere else. But he got better and better. First pushing Fed to 4 sets at Wimbledon, then 5 before an injury, then beating him in the best match I've ever seen. Then Nadal got him again on hardcourts in Australia and left Federer in tears. Not saying this as a knock on Roger. It's amazing what Nadal did against Federer when every other player in the sport cannot touch him. At all. And he did it by not being afraid of Federer and by putting in an incredible amount of work to get better. I don't know if Murray, Roddick, Djokavic have the same talent, but they could take a page from Nadal's efforts. I think Roddick is doing that now, but I'm not sure if it's too late or if he'll ever have the return game to pull it off. Well see that's the problem for Andy. He IS a contemporary of Fed's. Nadal is not. As such Nadal is peaking 2-3 years after Fed's peak. Same is true of the even younger Murray and Djokovic who will both end up with winning records versus Federer I suspect. Doesn't matter. This isn't boxing. You win tournaments not matches so Murray's 6-2 mark versus Roger means nothing until he starts winning slams. But Roddick has a parallel career path. He's not working any less hard than the guys who are beating Fed now; he's just vulnerable to Nadal, the up-and-comers, AND he's still vulnerable to Fed. That's a lot of weeds to hack through to get to a trophy. He needs a little luck to win a major right now, but it's encouraging that he still might be able to do it. This was a fantastic effort out of him.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 6, 2009 11:05:55 GMT -5
That was a great match and I pretty much agree with what you all have said. I guess there was a coin flip or something to determine who gets to serve first. Ultimately, it was a huge advantage for Federer to get to serve first in the last set. Obviously, if Andy had broken first then that wouldn't have been the case, but overall, I think it's a tremendous advantage.
I would like to see the order switched every "set" in the fifth. In other words, when it got to 6-6, I would have liked to see Roddick get to serve first. Then if it went to 12-12, then I would suggest it goes back to Roger's honor.
Oh well, it was a great Breakfast (and lunch) at Wimbledon.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jul 6, 2009 11:20:35 GMT -5
That was a great match and I pretty much agree with what you all have said. I guess there was a coin flip or something to determine who gets to serve first. Ultimately, it was a huge advantage for Federer to get to serve first in the last set. Obviously, if Andy had broken first then that wouldn't have been the case, but overall, I think it's a tremendous advantage. I would like to see the order switched every "set" in the fifth. In other words, when it got to 6-6, I would have liked to see Roddick get to serve first. Then if it went to 12-12, then I would suggest it goes back to Roger's honor. Oh well, it was a great Breakfast (and lunch) at Wimbledon. Who serves "first" is the man who didn't serve last to end the previous set--so Roddick closed out 4th holding serve, so Federer starts 5th serving. The game has been that way and now Hifi wants to "see a change" for what reason? It's about finding a way to win--and Roddick had his chance at 15-40 to break Federer in 5th---and didn't get it done. If he does--do we even hear such drivel as the crap posted above? The only time a "flip" decides who serves---opening set.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 6, 2009 11:32:56 GMT -5
That was a great match and I pretty much agree with what you all have said. I guess there was a coin flip or something to determine who gets to serve first. Ultimately, it was a huge advantage for Federer to get to serve first in the last set. Obviously, if Andy had broken first then that wouldn't have been the case, but overall, I think it's a tremendous advantage. I would like to see the order switched every "set" in the fifth. In other words, when it got to 6-6, I would have liked to see Roddick get to serve first. Then if it went to 12-12, then I would suggest it goes back to Roger's honor. Oh well, it was a great Breakfast (and lunch) at Wimbledon. Back when I played competitive tennis, I actually liked serving second. Even when I won the toss I usually made my opponent serve first. At the high school level the first game of the match is often the easiest to break, since the server isn't in their rhythm yet. Of course, it's a bit different when you have the best players in the world starting a 5th set on the most serve-friendly surface in the world. But I think Federer's advantage in serving first was overblown. Roddick showed throughout the match that he didn't have any problems with pressure.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Jul 6, 2009 13:26:03 GMT -5
Giga, Nadal may not be Federer's kryptonite but he's certainly gotten the better of him. 13-7 overall. 9-2 clay, 3-3 hard court and 1-2 grass. 6-2 in grand slams and 5-2 in grand slam finals. Victories in the finals at both Wimbledon and the Australian. The first time they played was on hardcourt back in 2004. Nadal won and he was only 18 compared to Federer's 23. Right now Nadal is just entering his prime while Federer is already past his peak. It will be next to impossible for Federer to have winning career record against Nadal. This doesn't mean that i don't think Federer is the GOAT. His record speaks for itself. 15 grand slams and an unbelievable string of grand slam semifinals. Hats off to Federer. But when you compare the head to head rivalry between the two, Nadal clearly wins.
|
|