roddick is a prick and federer seems to be exactly the opposite. i'm rooting for an absolute domination by roger and that wouldn't be shocking at all.
Wow, Roddick sure did receive a public lashing out there. An hour and a half match. I've never seen anyone demolish Roddick that bad. Federer as great as he is, was in special, rare form today.
That is so totally not surprising. Anytime people start talking up Roddick, Federer comes along and smacks him around.
Wow, I expected Roddick to win. He was playing so well and beat the Fed in the exhibition and came very close in Shanghai. He was confident going into the match while Roger was making a lot of unforced errors. I really feel that Roger Federer can go onto becoming the best even though this was a semi-final.
It is funny how people always start talking about someone who can beat Federer. And then when they play Federer destroys them. Federer is just the best there is. And it is not even close. I'm so happy i am able to watch Federer play.
wow that was awesome to watch. some of federer's shots you just want to say he's lucky but the fact his he's just amazing. we may be watching the greatest tennis player in history right here.
you know what, he just did. what a game! funny even the media gave him some hard time after the match. link
the rest of that interview is pretty funny too. it must be hard coming to grips with the fact that you're another man's b****. he does an impressive job of keeping all his direct praise of federer to a minimum, while keeping a hint of "this guy just drilled me again and i can't take it anymore" in pretty much every answer.
Federer is amazing...Nothing against Roddick, as I was hoping he'd put on a better showing, but Federer is at a different level... pwned...
Roddick must have pissed off Federer. In the 4th game in the 1st set Roddick shouted something after after breaking back off a Federer mi****. It was all downhill after that.
Umm, everyone is Federer's b****. We're watching possibly the greatest tennis player to ever play the sport.
Only Gonzo has a chance to match Fed's shot for shot in my opinion at the moment. Even then, it will take a monumental collapse from Fed not to take the Open.
Well I'm glad that I missed this match since it was such a blowout. Here's a question for you serious tennis fans: Could Federer beat Bjorn Borg when Borg was in his prime?
I tried to stay awake for this match and I had the live streaming on my PC so I could watch in my bed. I fell asleep though but woke up around 4:15am or so. I took one look at the monitor and saw an empty stadium. I knew Roddick had just gotten curbstomped by federer if it was already over. Back to sleep I went.
It would depend on the surface. Borg would have the upper hand on red clay where Federer has not yet figured out how to beat Nadal for two years in a row. Federer would own Borg on hard court outright. Slight edge goes to Federer on grass because he could switch to another gear at any time by playing serve and volley (see Federer vs Roddick in 2004 Wimbledon finals). As great as Borg's grand slam record was, McEnroe boasts a 3-1 (tied 7-7 overall) record against Borg in head-to-head grand slam title matches, and arguably was responsible for sending Borg, who was still in his prime at age 25, to his early retirement. Perhaps a more intriguing question is how Federer in his current form would fare if he played against peak Sampras on grass (or on hard court and carpet). It's basically a clown era in men's tennis nowadays.
Borg retired in his prime at 26, so it would sort of like Federer retiring right about now. Borg had 61 ATP titles by 25, and Federer had 43. But Federer is known not to play every tournament as many of his peers do. I believe the question is more apt in relation to Sampras. He had the same aura about him as Federer has now. In playing Federer, it is a victory if you take all three sets to tie breaks and you still lose. Federer, like Sampras both had problems on clay. If Federer can win one of these days on clay, he will undeniably be the best ever. He has mastered every surface otherwise. It is to be noted that Borg, only played the Aussie Open once, and skipped it for the majority of his career.
If I understood this quote correctly, you are saying that the competition level is not that high. If that is what you are saying I disagree. I think the level of men's tennis has never been higher. Nowadays, any of the top 25 players can routinely beat each other on a good day. This is not including Federer of course. I mean anyone in the top 25 can beat anyone other than Federer. The level of fitness and power is at all time highs in the game and there is not much difference in the skill level amongst 2-25 players. Tennis is much more enjoyable to watch these days especially in the mid rounds (3rd, 4th, quarters) since anything can really happen. I did not see this happening regularly in the 90's.
