Wimbledon Gentlemen's Final

[calltheobvious]

What a match, though not exactly. The serving was obviously top-notch, but this match didn't have nearly the level of shot-making or exciting rallies of some of the Federer-Nadal finals, or even previous Federer-Roddick Wimbledon finals. That said, I don't think I've ever felt so bad for a runner-up in any individual sport. And I felt pretty sick for Rocco Mediate at the Open last summer.

So where does Roddick's career go from here? I could see him winning a major or two in his last couple of peak years just as easily as I could see him failing to ever make another major semi-final.

[weezie]

It was really heart-warming to see how gracious Roger and Andy were towards each other. Very, very gentlemanly and refreshing.
Poor Roddick, it made me tear up a little watching his congratulatory speech.
And Federer was so so smooth and self-effacing. Whatever "it" is, Roger sure has it.
Roddick will be back on Centre Court.

[Bluedog]

I was cheering hard for Roddick, and felt terrible that he fell just short. I love Federer, but this is one of the only instances I was rooting against him. I didn't really have confidence in Roddick throughout the match - in clutch situations, Federer just doesn't make mistakes, and Roddick, unfortunately, does sometimes. I was especially surprised Roddick didn't just collapse after the second set heartbreaker - being up 6-2 in the breaker and not pulling it out. A lot of players would have eased up a bit and Federer would blow them out of the water. Andy showed a lot of mental toughness there. The two players' physical condition just astounds me too. They're still ripping serves and forehands at 14-14 in the 5th set, after playing for 4+ players. It's miraculous. I can barely move after a tough three set match, let alone 7+ sets of tennis.

I don't think Andy will have many more opportunities like this as long as Federer and Nadal are still around. I could see him getting to a few more semis/finals and perhaps winning one at Wimbledon or the US Open before his career is over. But this opportunity just slipped away, and I don't see it coming back very often. I didn't realize he's only 26, though. He played better at Wimbledon than I've ever seen him, so if he keeps it up, he certainly could compete for grand slams. But really, it's everybody vs. Federer/Nadal.

Also, gotta say congrats to Federer on the 15th grand slam. Obviously, it's amazing and the most ever. He certainly deserves it and it a class-act all the way. He just makes everything look so effortless on the court. While I could see Roddick putting in all his guts into every shot, Federer just moves and hits the ball like he's floating and barely swinging...It's amazing. Clearly, he works ridiculously hard, but I guess that's part of his majestic qualities that he makes it look easy. I'd really like to see Sampras vs. Federer in their primes against each other at Wimbledon. I think I'd give Sampras the slight edge (nobody could return his serve; although Federer could barely return Roddick's either; one break after playing 78 games or something?!?), although I'd give Federer the edge on hard court, and a huge edge on clay.

I also find it interesting that ESPN chooses to compare Federer and Tiger and their "stats." Intersport comparisons are ridiculously stupid, but I guess it's somewhat fun. I'd be astonished beyond belief if Federer ends up with more majors than Tiger. Although Federer is 27 and Tiger is 33, people can play golf at the highest level when they're much older/out of shape. Just look at Chuck Daly. You qualify for the senior's tour in tennis when you're THIRTY, while to qualify for the PGA Seniors tour you have to be 50. Yeah, it's a twenty-year difference. While I definitely would say that Tiger Woods is a great athlete, golf is more a skill than an intense athletic event and I could see Tiger competing at the highest level for at least 10 more years if he chooses. Federer has probably a few more years left in the tank. Tennis just takes so much out of your body...It's miraculous how few injuries Federer has had over the years, though.

In any event, a great final even though I agree that the points weren't as awe-inspiring as the Nadal-Federer match last year. Federer deserves the win, but I felt really badly for Roddick and wanted him to capture it. Federer said to Andy, "I know how you feel. I was there last year." To which Roddick responded, "But you've already won it five times!"

[Mal]

I'll second everything bluedog just said. Except the part about the former Detroit Pistons head coach's golf skills ;) - in any event, John Daly may not be the best example, either, as his game's been non-existent for quite a while now, but bluedog's point stands; plenty of not so fit golfers have won majors, sometimes deep into their '30s.

Anyway, I'm a pretty big fan of Federer, but I, too, really wanted to see Roddick win this weekend.

I like the way Roddick has handled himself, at least over the last 3 or 4 years. The guy's in a pretty tough position; he reached the top of the game at a tender age, mostly on the back of his next stage of evolution serve, only to find that his stay at the top was limited to about two months due to the emergence of a once-in-a-generation player, possibly the greatest of all time. In most eras, even though his game was somewhat one-dimensional at the time, Roddick wins at least a 2-3 slams instead of just one. You don't plan on the next guy taking over and winning 15 out of the next 24 or whatever it is.

Instead, Roddick probably feels he's perceived as a one hit wonder and a disappointment who failed to live up to expectations and potential. That's got to be tough to take as a 20-22 year-old, even though the perception is at least somewhat unjustified. You've just reached the top, you're a little bit arrogant (not in a bad way) and announce your presence with the biggest serve of all time, and poof! It's all gone. I'm sure it burns him up that he reached No. 1 only to be immediately eclipsed by Federer. It took him a few years to even accept/realize why it happened, but now that he's figured it out he's adapted his game and become a much better player at age 26 than he was at 20. He's lost weight, he appears coachable, and his groundstrokes and court game are much improved. His serve is less booming yet just as productive and probably a lot better on his body. He's got a very sharp wit and is a good interview for an athlete, so it's hard not to like his personality. I agree that if he continues along this path, he'll probably get one or two more looks at a U.S. or Australian, but as long as Federer and Nadal are around, there's not a lot of room for anyone else at the top.

[JasonEvans]

I also find it interesting that ESPN chooses to compare Federer and Tiger and their "stats." Intersport comparisons are ridiculously stupid, but I guess it's somewhat fun. I'd be astonished beyond belief if Federer ends up with more majors than Tiger. Although Federer is 27 and Tiger is 33, people can play golf at the highest level when they're much older/out of shape. Just look at Chuck Daly. You qualify for the senior's tour in tennis when you're THIRTY, while to qualify for the PGA Seniors tour you have to be 50. Yeah, it's a twenty-year difference. While I definitely would say that Tiger Woods is a great athlete, golf is more a skill than an intense athletic event and I could see Tiger competing at the highest level for at least 10 more years if he chooses. Federer has probably a few more years left in the tank. Tennis just takes so much out of your body...It's miraculous how few injuries Federer has had over the years, though.

Here is why the comparison is ridiculous--

For a top player, it is far, far, far easier to win a tennis tournament than it is to win a golf tournament. At the start of a grand slam, how many guys have a realistic shot at winning-- maybe 5 or 6? Is it even that many? I mean, when was the last time a player ranked outside the top 5 won a grand slam? Federer and Nadal have won every single Grand Slam event for the past 5 years except for this year's Aussie Open won by Djokovic... who was ranked #3 in the world at the time, I think.

Compare this to golf, where #71 ranked Lucas Glover just won the latest Major event, the US Open. The #71 tennis player in the world would be thrilled to merely make the round of 32 at a Grand Slam. Angel Cabrera won the Masters before that. It is nothing for a player ranked in the 20s or so to win a Major tournament. In the 5 years where Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (once) have won a Grand Slam, golf has seen 9 different players win Major tournaments... and that is with Tiger dominating the sport in a way that has never been seen before.

Tiger has the advantage of being able to play longer in golf, but what he has done is much more impressive in my mind than what Federer has accomplished.

--Jason "Roger is amazing though, no question about it" Evans

[rasputin]

Here is why the comparison is ridiculous--

For a top player, it is far, far, far easier to win a tennis tournament than it is to win a golf tournament. At the start of a grand slam, how many guys have a realistic shot at winning-- maybe 5 or 6? Is it even that many? I mean, when was the last time a player ranked outside the top 5 won a grand slam? Federer and Nadal have won every single Grand Slam event for the past 5 years except for this year's Aussie Open won by Djokovic... who was ranked #3 in the world at the time, I think.

Compare this to golf, where #71 ranked Lucas Glover just won the latest Major event, the US Open. The #71 tennis player in the world would be thrilled to merely make the round of 32 at a Grand Slam. Angel Cabrera won the Masters before that. It is nothing for a player ranked in the 20s or so to win a Major tournament. In the 5 years where Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (once) have won a Grand Slam, golf has seen 9 different players win Major tournaments... and that is with Tiger dominating the sport in a way that has never been seen before.

Tiger has the advantage of being able to play longer in golf, but what he has done is much more impressive in my mind than what Federer has accomplished.


--Jason "Roger is amazing though, no question about it" Evans

And, if I may add, this is due to the fact that tennis tournaments are structured, by seeding, so that the best players rise to the top. The major golf tournaments aren't.

[Bluedog]

Here is why the comparison is ridiculous--

For a top player, it is far, far, far easier to win a tennis tournament than it is to win a golf tournament. At the start of a grand slam, how many guys have a realistic shot at winning-- maybe 5 or 6? Is it even that many? I mean, when was the last time a player ranked outside the top 5 won a grand slam? Federer and Nadal have won every single Grand Slam event for the past 5 years except for this year's Aussie Open won by Djokovic... who was ranked #3 in the world at the time, I think.

Compare this to golf, where #71 ranked Lucas Glover just won the latest Major event, the US Open. The #71 tennis player in the world would be thrilled to merely make the round of 32 at a Grand Slam. Angel Cabrera won the Masters before that. It is nothing for a player ranked in the 20s or so to win a Major tournament. In the 5 years where Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (once) have won a Grand Slam, golf has seen 9 different players win Major tournaments... and that is with Tiger dominating the sport in a way that has never been seen before.

Tiger has the advantage of being able to play longer in golf, but what he has done is much more impressive in my mind than what Federer has accomplished.

--Jason "Roger is amazing though, no question about it" Evans

Yeah, you make good points. Sorry about the John Daly flub! I think the reason that golf tournaments are more easily won by lower ranked players is not because golf has more depth in talent than tennis (not that you suggested that), but rather golf has so many different variables that lead to different outcomes. In tennis, it's one player vs. one player on a tennis court that is always the same size (yeah, there are slightly different surfaces, but the game is essentially the same). In golf, courses vary widely that suit certain players over others, you don't just play one vs. one in a tournament style with seedings (except for match play tournaments; I think in those typically the top players shine more easily), and tee times can have a dramatic effect on the conditions (humidity, wind, etc.).

Golf is a sport that each individual really has to adapt to the circumstances to that unique particular point in time and course - in tennis, it's the same court dimensions at all times and you're always playing against one other player across the net from you to advance in a tournament style. Also, even if you have a huge upset one round in tennis and played unbelievably, that doesn't help you in the next round when you start at 0-0. In golf, it's all cumulative so if a lower player dominates round 1, they don't have to do as well in the remaining rounds to win. Tennis requires the lower ranked players to win each match to advance unlike golf. It seems to be more difficult for lower ranked athletes to beat the top players over and over again than just cumulatively edging them out. Do you think Lucas Glover would have won the masters if he had to beat Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and Sergio García individually three rounds in a row? I sure don't. So, yeah, it's definitely logical that golf championships would be more up in the air due to the structure / format of the competition and the fact that the course and conditions widely vary. So, I'd agree that what Tiger has done in this particular timeframe is more impressive than Federer, but I'm not sure it's "easier" to win more grand slams in tennis than golf over the course of somebody's career due to the fact longevity in golf is much greater. I think I'm pretty much agreeing with everything you said, though. :)

[Mal]

Couldn't agree more that it's totally an apples to oranges comparison, at least the way ESPN's five second comparison chart presents it. But it's still fun.

But here's the thing: at the end of the day, the record for slams won by a man is now 15, and the record for majors won by a golfer is (currently) 18. That's not that much different. Which just emphasizes again how incredibly short the window is for an elite tennis player. Once you fall off, you're done. There are exceptions, the most recent I suppose being Agassi, but for the most part, the average tennis player has 7-8 years in which they have a legitimate chance to win Grand Slam tournaments. There aren't many analogues in tennis to Nicklaus at the Masters in '86 - Jimmy Connors made some aged runs at the U.S. Open, you'll recall, but didn't even make the finals. At best, then, you've got a little over 30 good chances. Federer's won 15 now. Whether it's "easier" to win any one of them than it is to hold off the field at Augusta doesn't much matter. If it were that easy, someone else would have won 15 prior to this. In this regard, then, I would argue that, for the moment, what Federer has done is more impressive. He owns the record and doesn't look like he's ready to stop building on it. When Tiger hits 19 majors and passes Jack before he's 40, that will change things.

Like I said, it's a fun bar argument - I'm just saying that for starters, I'll take the position that there's merit to take the opposite stance as Jason. To get any further, I think we need to look at the numbers on the two of them in comparison to their own competition and history in their own game. I know Tiger's win percentage for tournaments started is pretty ridiculous, but have no idea about Roger's. I did see in the paper yesterday that his match record win percentage is 7-8% better than Sampras', however. And his run of consecutive slam finals appearances is unparalleled.

I guess one thing we can all agree on is how blessed we are to watch quite possibly the g.o.a.t. in the two major individual sports compete in their prime AT THE SAME TIME. Amazing good luck for sports fans.