Roger Federer won Wimbledon!

[D_Ted Riding Hooded]

He looked gutted at the end and absolutely exhausted - didn't even have the energy to smile or anything afterwards.

Hope he comes back to win in the next year or two. Especially if it's against Murray, heheh.

Fixed it for you mate!! :biggrin1:

 

[Flashy]

There is NOTHING defensive about the way Nadal plays tennis.

congratulations industrialsize, you have finally gone fully over the edge.

NADAL is absolutely, 100% a defensive baseliner, just like Borg.

Nadal's game is absolutely as a defensive baseliner in nature. he *DEFENDS* and counterpunches, getting every shot back, forcing his opponent into mistakes, or eventually finding an opportunity for a winner.

i did not say the way he plays tennis is "defensive" i said he was a defensive baseliner/counterpuncher, which he *IS*...just like Borg, just like Wilander...but with tons more strength and power.

since you obviously have never heard the term "Defensive Baseliner" i suggest you look it up...because that is what Nadal is.

and an excellent one at that.

 

[Skull Mason]

anywaym seeing a match on TV is nothing compare to live...the TV angle does not do the speed of the game justice...the speed in person is beyond belief.

That is what I figured, I can't wait to see one live.

i would hardly say he "owns Federer". he has some very clear advantages, and his style of play is very difficult for Federer to counter on clay, most notably because Nadal is a lefty, and, the key to the victories has been Nadal's topspin forehand on clay vs Federer's one handed backhand, which has proved to be the difference in the matchs...

they have played in their matches a total of 69 sets vs each other...

Nadal leads, 40 sets to 29 sets. if those 69 sets, 16 were decided in tie breakers, and 22 were decided by a single break of service game. in other words, 60% of the sets they have played, have been decided on a tiebreak or one service game break overall....so it is hardly being "owned", though Nadal does have the edge.


So in other words, 60% of the sets they have played Nadal has won What I really mean is, it doesn't matter to me that Nadal won by tiebreaker or by error or what have you, the bottom line is he won and it wasn't a statistical anomaly or coincidence that he was winning those points. The Bills lost 4 Super Bowls, and it didn't matter if it was by one point, in overtime, or by a kick...they never won one.



indeed, he did not play well vs roddick at all...but if you think Roger could not have played any better at Wimbledon, you are a bit off...

Federer played well below his usual level...he served 66%, while Nadal served 73%.

Federer had *52* unforced errors...while Nadal had only 27

Federer uncharacteristically threw away break chances (converted only 1 of 13)

he was poor at the net, converting only 52% of his chances (42 of 75)

and, finally even with all that, Federer won 204 points, Nadal won 209...of the 209 points Nadal won, over 1/4th were Federer unforced errors.




well, a combination, actually. Nadal's relentlessness, and Federer's uncharacteristically huge unforced errors.

This is what drives me crazy. Those are all great numbers to defend your point, but try to think why he was playing poor at the net? Or why he was committing so many *unforced* errors?"Throwing away" break chances or losing them to Nadal because of his relentlesness? It was all uncharacteristic of Federer because it is uncharacteristic of him to get pwned by someone!!! Not mono!

But this is what really gets me going, and maybe you could explain it to me to help shed light on it. What the fuck is an *unforced error*? If someone hits a ball with such great spin or velocity and you are unable to hit it back properly, that is considered an *unforced error*? That seems like the most bogus stat on the planet. First service return errors are considered *forced* errors yet an error on the second serve is considered *unforced*? What a grey area that exists within that stat and it bugs me. If another man hits you a ball and you don't hit it back it was forced. That is what the fucking game is about!!!!


but i have never actually seen Federer get "bullied".

Maybe I just read to much into his facial expressions and body language but he definitely changes when Nadal is on the offensive with him. Maybe he is losing focus or something?

true.

but, we cannot forget, that the slower game and higher bounce favors Nadal, and tennis, has been moving (very sadly) away from speed and skill towards attrition.

Wimbledon surface in 2008 and 2009, is actually now *SLOWER* then most hard courts and it has been changed to a surface which gives a more true bounce.

no longer can the fastere harder hitting players count on the fast, low skidding bounce...instead, more of a true bounce, and less skid and speed, aids the heavy spin, defenders like Nadal...allowing them that extra split second to get to the ball, that on previous surfaces would be a winner past them.

this is an ATP issue, and i really hate the ATP stance on all this...the whole point of having different surfaces and speeds was to provide variety throughout the seasons...

what is the point of different surfaces, if you are going to make them all the same speed and bounce? sort of defeats the purpose.

frankly, i do not like the fact that hard courts are so prevalent...tennis was designed for grass courts, and it is a travesty, that there are only 6 grass court tourneys a year, and they are crammed in to 5 weeks, so, even if you played straight through, you could only play three maximum, since Halle/Queens Club is the same week, then Hertogenbosch/Eastbourne are the same week, then Wimbledon, then Newport (which starts the day after the Wimbledon final, so nobody can effectively enter that has made it into the quarters of wimbledon)

it is absurd...the US Open and Australian used to be on grass decades ago...now they are hard courts...

the constant smashing on hardcourts is causing injuries...

IMO, the entire summer season should play on grass...

Agree with all that...


i do not know if you have ever played on grass, but it is absolutely amazing...i love it. it is how tennis should be played, and always was cept for the clay courts.

I never have, but I dream about it...one day...


anyway, more athletes are going to start breaking down for this simple reason:

if you increase the size of the ball, and then slow down the speed of the surface, it makes for much longer, defensive, rallies...more rallies equals much longer matches, longer matches, leads to wear and tear, and wear and tear and longer matches on hard courts, is a killer. imagine 3-4 miles of quick, side to side movement, bursts and sprints and pounding on essentially concrete.

it is ruining the game IMO.

the balls were even made 6% bigger this year to slow the game down further...advantage to the counterpunchers and defensive baseliners, like NAdal and Murray and Hewitt etc.


Agreed, but those long rallies are fucking great to watch. And Murray is a choker.


i did not think it was a pain to watch necessarily, it was terrifying...though you are right, it was indeed a service war...(though nothing like the horrific 2001 Wimbledon Final between Ivanisevic and Rafter)



well, i don't know if it was *THAT* extreme :wink:

Federer put on the best serving show of his life, wheras Roddick's serve was starting to flag in terms of velocity and consistency from the higher levels earlier in the match...

Federer had several chances where he made it to 30-40, but his return game was way off...had he been on his usual way, it likely would have been a three-four set win and not what it became.

It would have been over in straight sets if Roger wasn't sleep walking. Like I said before, he is lucky he wasn't up against someone like Nadal because he would have been in trouble. Looks like he had mono this time around, not last. I think Roddick's game is boring as hell too.

I respect its efficiency, but it is just a war of attrition style based on causing errors, not hitting winners and being agressive.

Nadal's winners are the fiercest things on Earth


Murray and Nadal i think will be the next rivalry over the years possibly, which will be interesting, since Murray is the only one close to Nadal in terms of ability to retrieve and defend with such capacity.

Nadal will continue to stomp him out unless his injuries ruin him.


I agree that both Federer and Nadal would hand ass whippings to most of the rivals from the Sampras years, but frankly, i think that gets overplayed alot with regards to how good Sampras' competition was.

I think Courier was totally overrated.
Agassi was great, but the pre-98 Agassi was not as good as the Agassi that finally dedicated himself to tennis.
Becker, Edberg were already in decline by 92, Wilander was finished a bit earlier.

aside from that, there were alot of 1 or 2 hit wonders in that era, 1992-2000...Kafelnikov, Breugera, Muster, Krajicek, Moya, Korda...it was still basically Sampras, then Agassi, then everyone else.

I was too young for most of this. Growing up they are all I had to watch so I thought they were all great. I might look differently at them now but I don't know. I youtubed a lot of those players today and some of them were great. Edberg was fantastic.

 

[transformer_99]

"Quote:
I agree that the talent level that Sampras was playing with was far beyond what it has been the past few years. I also think Federer and Nadal still may have beaten all of them.
I agree that both Federer and Nadal would hand ass whippings to most of the rivals from the Sampras years, but frankly, i think that gets overplayed alot with regards to how good Sampras' competition was.

I think Courier was totally overrated.
Agassi was great, but the pre-98 Agassi was not as good as the Agassi that finally dedicated himself to tennis.
Becker, Edberg were already in decline by 92, Wilander was finished a bit earlier."

I'll argue that, I think many of the Sampras era competition had their run(s) of dominance and that's why I think the competition throughout Sampras career was better, good enough to rival anything Federer or Nadal has accomplished in a competitively weaker field and head to head against each other ?

Take Courier, the word over-rated used ? Well 3-4 years into Sampras career, Courier was the number 1 player for 2 straight years, 1991, Courier beat Sampras at the US Open.

Edberg ? In 1992, he beat Sampras for the US Open.

Let's move on to the 1-2 Open wonders of the Sampras era, Kafelnikov for instance. In 2000, he beat Haas in Australia and then at Wimbledon the same year, he beat Federer, That's 2 of the top 4 finishers at Wimbledon 2009.

I figure we get the best of them, let them play a series of double elimination tournaments for the peak of each's game and I don't think Federer or Nadal administer any @ss whippings against any of them. Also add a few guys like Michael Chang, Borg and McEnroe at their primes too and a few others to make the field deeper just to wear these guys down a little and you can spread those Open singles titles around pretty evenly. Adding those other guys gets you a few "other" era players in the field that are capable of playing exceptional tennis but had to in an era ehere the tennis racket was laminated wood and only 65 sq inches. We do have to realize Sampras used an 85 sq in racket while Federer used 90 sq in rackets. How big a difference does it make ? Well, you and I shank a lot of tennis balls with either, but Sampras and Federer, the difference might be as close as their 2001 upset match ?

7–6(7), 5–7, 6–4, 6–7(2), 7–5

Why put a guy like Chang in the field ? Chang is one of those one Open wonders, but he won his first at 17 years old. He also went to 4 and was 1-3, losing to Becker, Muster and Sampras, beating Edberg in 1989. His only Open, the youngest open winner to date, he lost the first 2 sets in an earlier match to 3 time champion Lendl, played thru leg cramps the final 3 sets and winning that match. Chang also beat Lendl similarly in 1991 after losing the first 2 sets. A player like Chang may not beat the others, but he'll make them wish they got a softer draw with the seedings ? I don't know so much that today's player would compete at that level without tanking the match with leg cramps ? At the end of his career, Federer beat him in 2000.

Others are debating this too:

Roger Federer Magical Tennis: Roger Federer vs. Pete Sampras

 

[Flashy]

This is what drives me crazy. Those are all great numbers to defend your point, but try to think why he was playing poor at the net? Or why he was committing so many *unforced* errors?"Throwing away" break chances or losing them to Nadal because of his relentlesness? It was all uncharacteristic of Federer because it is uncharacteristic of him to get pwned by someone!!! Not mono!

well, that is not really the case. Federer serving at a lower percentage than normal is not due to nadal, it is due to a poor first serve by RF.

and while indeed, when he played badly at the net, sometimes were due to great shots, dumping an easy volley into the net is not necessarily due to the opponent...

as for those errors, Nadal indeed created many many forced errors...unforced errors, though were on Fed...

frankly, i do not know if you remember it, but RF was smashing shots off the frame of his racket with no reason, and he outright took a swing and l*MISSED* the ball entirely one time...when it was an easy shot right down the middle...i was shocked by it.

also, many of the unforced errors came on the break opportunities, so while in fact, Nadal's relentless play did contribute to saving many of the breaks, Federer committing unforced errors on breaks cost him the match.

and, RF no longer had mono, but it still takes time, several months to get back to your best, which RF was not.

But this is what really gets me going, and maybe you could explain it to me to help shed light on it. What the fuck is an *unforced error*? If someone hits a ball with such great spin or velocity and you are unable to hit it back properly, that is considered an *unforced error*? That seems like the most bogus stat on the planet.

no, that is not actually the case...there are only three ways to win a point in tennis...

a winner,
an unforced error
a forced error.

these are the rules regarding classification:


"The idea of an error being either forced or unforced is to place the blame for the error - who is responsible for the missed shot? Was the error forced by the aggressive play of the opponent or was it unforced, just a mistake by the player who hit the shot?"


"This is how we train our staff to judge an unforced error. An unforced Error is when the player has time to prepare and position himself or herself to get the ball back in play and makes an error. This is a shot that the player would normally get back into play. The real keys here are time and position. When the opponent takes away time by hitting the prior shot with extra pace this can result in a forced error. Also, when the opponent forces the player out of position with placement (depth and/or angle) this can result in a forced error."

"As examples, most missed returns of first serves are considered to be forced errors - forced by the pace and placement of the opponent's serve. Many, if not most return errors against second serves, would be unforced errors since most second serves are just means to get the point started and do not put extra pressure on the receiver."

"Other examples, most passing shot attempts that fail would be classified as forced errors, forced by the opponent's aggressive play (the exception would be when an opponent hits a weak approach and the player has time to setup and then misses the shot, that would be unforced). Most approach shot errors would be unforced because the player is attempting to hit an aggressive shot and misses."

"Another way to look at it is this. Would you classify the prior shot as "weak" or just "in play" Or would you say it was "forcing" or "aggressive"? An error made off of a "weak" or "in play" shot would be unforced. An error resulting from a "forcing" or "aggressive shot" would be forced."
"By definition double faults are unforced errors."

First service return errors are considered *forced* errors yet an error on the second serve is considered *unforced*? What a grey area that exists within that stat and it bugs me. If another man hits you a ball and you don't hit it back it was forced. That is what the fucking game is about!!!!

well, not really...:wink: if someone barely gets back a great serve you just made, and it floats short, into the center of the court, and has little pace on it, you have time, you sprint forward to take it aggressively, and you smash it 5 over the baseline, that is not forced...that is a screwup :wink:

Maybe I just read to much into his facial expressions and body language but he definitely changes when Nadal is on the offensive with him. Maybe he is losing focus or something?

would you like to know my brilliant take/view on the problems RF has with Nadal, aside from the obvious forehand/backhand crosscourt matchup?

here is my theory about RF's slowing consistency from 2007 to now.

RF plays with a 90 inch racket face...Nadal, plays with a 100 inch racket face.

RF plays with the smallest racket on the tour.

Sampras used to play with a Wilson 85! the best, most consistent hitters tend to believe in their mastery over the smaller racket (who could doubt them?)

anyhoo, you may find this interesting...RF spent his whole career, playing with the same racket Sampras used, since he admired Pete's game...so RF used the 85...notice RF never won anything up until Wimbledon 03...what happened to predicate that? in late 2002, at age 21, RF switched to a 90 inch Wilson. all of a sudden, the slight mishits, shots off the frame that occurred so much more often with the smaller, less forgiving 85, were gone, the sweet spot was 6% larger, and looky what happened...Federer went on to a dominant stretch from 2004- 2007.

It is no coincidence to me, that as the size of the balls have been increased, and as he has gotten a bit older and his precision has declined, just a slight bit, this has accounted for the higher amounts of mis-hits and inconcsistencies he has encountered.

think about it...Nadal plays with an 11% larger racket face...most players are stubborn as hell, RF is no exception...RF will never switch to a 100, but if he switched to a 95, or even a custom 93 (Djokovic uses a 93) that would make a massive difference, and would help him close the physical gap with Nadal, by giving him a more forgiving racket, and a larger sweet spot.

if he were to switch to a 95 or a 93, that would, IMO, give him back an edge as he gets older...

Sampras switched to a 90 when he came back for his exhibitions, and he said it was so great it felt "like cheating" LOL...so you can imagine, that noticeable increase for a great player to suddenly have 6% more sweet spot area, without a noticeable weight increase.

that is my opinion, and i have discussed that with many friends, and they agreed...(obviously RF does not know what he is doing and should listen to me :wink: ) it would be worth taking a chance on though, IMO.

I never have, but I dream about it...one day...

it is almost like a carpet when you play on one...it is about the same type of consistency as the putting green on a golf course. It is a great experience.

Agreed, but those long rallies are fucking great to watch. And Murray is a choker.

I don't really like those super long rallies...alot of times, it is just two bashers...it is not like watching a point be contstructed. When you watch a long point, at least i, like to see a long point between players like Federer and Gasquet...taking nothing away from other players, i like to see, more artistic rallies, not that id do not admire the power game, i just don't like the grinders...Nadal is a grinder, but fortuantely, he brings alot more flair and power to it, which makes watching him much more enjoyable then your typical defensive baseliner (like Murray)

It would have been over in straight sets if Roger wasn't sleep walking.

true.

Like I said before, he is lucky he wasn't up against someone like Nadal because he would have been in trouble.

not necessarily...Nadal, as great as he is, does not have a consistently lethal 140-143 mile per hour serve. He presents a different set of challenges.

Looks like he had mono this time around, not last. I think Roddick's game is boring as hell too.

I agree... i cannot stand Roddick's game...he has always been to me "A hat with a serve"...there is no beauty or genius to it.

but still, i give him credit for finally getting his ass in shape and working hard. The dividends paid off...too bad he wasted the first 7 years of his career playing like an elephant with a cannon on its head

Nadal's winners are the fiercest things on Earth

LOL...many of them are great...but i would hardly call them the "fiercest things on earth"...i have seen many better forehands over the years, though Nadal's are certainly up there.

 

[Flashy]

Nadal will continue to stomp him out unless his injuries ruin him.

maybe...you never know. Murray is a year younger. Personally, i really find Murray to be boring and lame. I do not like his game at all. as for Nadal stomping him, well, Nadal is 7-2 against him, and only really stomped him in 3 of those matches...and Murray did bagel him in one set at the ABN Amro tournament earlier this year....not many people can say they did that.

I was too young for most of this. Growing up they are all I had to watch so I thought they were all great. I might look differently at them now but I don't know. I youtubed a lot of those players today and some of them were great.

sometimes i forget you are a decade younger than I am :wink:...while it does have its advantages, you missed the 70s, which was tennis at its apex...it is hard to describe, but the players were like rockstars back then...it was one massive tour and party...Tennis was the third most popular sport in the US at the time, behind only baseball and football.

there were so many characters and rivalries going on...Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Nastase,

the only other match i have ever seen that was as good as Federer Nadal 08 Wimbledon, was the Borg-McEnroe 1980 epic at Wimbledon, from which this picture is taken

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/20/article-1193973-007E735900000258-97_233x311_popup.jpg


you have to watch it if you have not seen it...

1–6, 7–5, 6–3, 6–7, 8–6 was the score...
(you can buy it on DVD for about $12 bucks)

Borg needed 8 match points to close McEnroe out in the 5th, after leading 40-15, after finally breaking McEnroe the game before... below is that sequence...

YouTube - Borg McEnroe Match Points 1980

but even more remarkable, was the tiebreak that McEnroe won to close out the 4th set and take it to the 5th...he won it 18-16, it took 22 minutes, and he faced 5 set points for Borg...you can watch it on you tube...epic

i was on the edge of my seat the whole time, praying for Borg to win



I *HATED* McEnroe...

i was a Borg fan...I *LOVED* Borg...me and all my friends did. when we were 7-8 years old or so, we all wore headbands, had long hair, and wore his special Fila momogrammed line of shirts and shorts...he was *EPIC* he was an absolute rock star. he was arguably, at the time, behind only Muhammad Ali as the most famous athlete in the world, and Ali was nearing the end...

man you would have loved 70s tennis...wood rackets, grass courts...


i suggest you do some research on Illie Nastaste, if you do not know much about him... he was a *LUNATIC* his antics and yelling on the court usually overshadowed probably some of the most artistic play you could ever find...he was also a reknowned lothario who slept with over 2500 women...his book is utterly hysterical and a look at 70s tennis behind the scenes...

there were times at Wimbledon when you could not hear anything because the girls were screaming so loudly for him from the stands!!! LOL

(check out the picture at 1:33 of this video, to see what it was like with the ladies)

YouTube - IIie Nastase - the greatest natural talent to ever swing a racquet

he was so talented, but totally nuts. never reached his full potential.

Edberg was fantastic.

indeed he was. very graceful, and a top notch person, and the sportsmanship trophy is named after him

 

[swordfishME]

Congrats Rodza. Even though he was not at the top of his game and Rawdick almost beat him, his record and return to World # 1 is well deserved.

Wonder how long it will take someone to win more grandslams than Federer? Sampras's reign at the top of grand slam wins lasted almost a decade. Maybe Murray or Soldieberg? Nadal is out because I have a feeling his pro-career is going to end sometime in the next 12-24 months. He will have to significantly alter his game if he wants to keep playing long-term with Tendonitis in BOTH knees and that just won't be Nadal anymore.....

 

[transformer_99]

Congrats Rodza. Even though he was not at the top of his game and Rawdick almost beat him, his record and return to World # 1 is well deserved.

Wonder how long it will take someone to win more grandslams than Federer? Sampras's reign at the top of grand slam wins lasted almost a decade. Maybe Murray or Soldieberg? Nadal is out because I have a feeling his pro-career is going to end sometime in the next 12-24 months. He will have to significantly alter his game if he wants to keep playing long-term with Tendonitis in BOTH knees and that just won't be Nadal anymore.....

I think the current group is too bunched up in a competitive group to see that dominance emerge. Honestly, I think even with the last decade, Federer's 15 were quieter than Sampras's 14 in terms of fan base. I think the emergence of Golf with Tiger Woods had a big part of that popularity. Perhaps tennis makes it's comeback ? I know I became more interested during Sampras era because of the Americans that were prominently successful. But that gave way too. Then Tiger Woods simply took golf to a new level, perhaps for the longest time, he was the Federer of that sport ? But then you also had Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson and others that have made that more interesting to watch lately. It also helps when Tiger has knee surgery.

Anyway, after researching it, yeah, I was right just based upon my interest level:

Wimbledon finals ratings best in 10 years - NewsFlash - MassLive.com

Wimbledons alone, 1999's Agassi vs Sampras 10 years ago had more tv viewers. TV Rating share, 2000's Sampras vs Rafter had a higher rating. This was "for the record" so that was surprising in the stats. Even more surprising though, this had 9% higher rating than Nadal vs Federer last year. Nadal withdrawing effected my opinion of Wimbledon 2009 as short of 2008's, anti climactic as Federer was more assured of getting 15. Roddick played better than I expected, the whole tournament in general was better than I thought, but for # 15, I would have rather have seen it earned vs Nadal at his best. Roddick I guess was the next best match we could have possibly gotten ? And it did live up to the billing for the most part ?

 

[Flashy]

I think the current group is too bunched up in a competitive group to see that dominance emerge. Honestly, I think even with the last decade, Federer's 15 were quieter than Sampras's 14 in terms of fan base. I think the emergence of Golf with Tiger Woods had a big part of that popularity. Perhaps tennis makes it's comeback ? I know I became more interested during Sampras era because of the Americans that were prominently successful. But that gave way too. Then Tiger Woods simply took golf to a new level, perhaps for the longest time, he was the Federer of that sport ? But then you also had Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson and others that have made that more interesting to watch lately. It also helps when Tiger has knee surgery.

I don't know that i would say that Roger's were "quieter" than Sampras' but i do know what you mean...it took Pete 12 years to accumulate his titles (1990 1st win, to 2002 last win)... Roger has accumulated his in just 6 years (1st Win was wimbledon 2003)

it may have been quieter here, because Roger was european, not american, and did not have a big persona....but then again, neither did Pete. Pete's achievements were always overshadowed because he was so low-key, and not a big personality, the way Agassi was, or McEnroe, etc.

Also, let's not forget, Roger did not begin to fully be promoted here, because he had no agent, and he was not promoted well....(this has picked up considerably, once he hired IMG Tennis and his agent full time...notice how since 2005-2006, he has finally been given his due...sad that it took so long, because people who were not paying attention, missed his best tennis, 2004-2007)

As for Tiger, i do not think the emergence overshadowed Roger, because, do not forget, Tiger, turned pro in 1996, and was "Tiger" for 7 years before Roger won his first Wimbledon in summer 2003. Tiger had already won 8 majors by then.

It is hard to say how much publicity Roger would have gotten, had he been American, and had a "big" personality, but my guess is, that he would have been as big as Tiger, easily. After all, don't forget, Roddick was being hyped massively, and ascended to #1 in the world in 2003...playing with only a big serve and a big forehand...there was little that was aesthetically pleasing about his play...

If Roger had been american, Nike would not have waited so long in promoting him the way they only have so heavily since 2007.

Sampras has never really received his due overall...everyone appreciated how great he was, but he was so humble, so quiet, so un-interested the spotlight and making waves, that the media could not latch on to him and make him a star...they always complained how boring he was...

it isn't possible to find a more "quiet" slam champion of that level...

Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, were all larger than life...Pete was simply a phenomenal tennis player...i loved his tennis, but he was definitely boring from a tennis/marketing point of view...

Federer brings the same kind of humility and class Sampras did, but he also brings a bit extra that makes him more marketable...elegance, artistry, etc. as such, i am glad to see Roger getting the attention he so richly deserves...I have about a dozen huge compilations of all his greatest shots over the years...and frankly, it is like watching Picasso...it is a shame it took so long for him to get his due, because he truly is an artist.

 

[Skull Mason]

without nadal coming back tennis is done.

 

[Flashy]

without nadal coming back tennis is done.

come on skull...He'll be back for the Rogers Cup in Montreal in August. :wink:

tennis has been "done" before. :biggrin1: