Sometime after 3am our time Roger Federer finally prevailed, winning his 15th slam event and 6th Wimbledon title. Picture and story at Nine.
He didn’t have it easy, especially after losing the first set and then being down 2-6 in the second set tie breaker.
Story and remaining pictures from SMH.
Andy Roddick definitely didn’t deserve to lose.
I reckon when it got to 10 all in the fifth set they should have called it a draw and given them both the title.
There were heaps of former champions there to see it all happen, including Borg, Sampras and Laver.
Talk about who is the greatest of all time is probably beside the point. Federer has a record without peer. Apart from a record 15 slam men’s single titles, he now returns to number one in the rankings. John Newcombe said that no-one who had ever lost that spot had ever regained it.
He now has 60 career titles, equal to Agassi in the modern era. He also served 50 aces, which I believe is thereabouts with Goran Ivanisevic’s record for a match at Wimbledon.
There was some misfiring with unforced errors in ground shots in particular, but Federer is always a joy to watch with seemingly undiminished speed and court coverage. His grace of movement and shot-making is peerless.
Dammit, I gave up and went to bed at 14-all. I thought they were going to keep playing until one of them died, and I didn’t want to see it.
Federer seems like a genuinely nice person. But what’s going on with Borg? He looks like he’s had some very stuffed up cosmetic surgery.
Did Newcombe say that? It’s not true.
PC my wife decided to go to bed at 15-14. Half way through the last game I called her back but she didn’t come. After the last point was played she showed up and reckoned that if she’d been watching it wouldn’t have happened.
Roddick shed a tear but was very gracious in defeat and the whole match had been played with exemplary sportsmanship. The whole sequence of what happened after the match was rather lovely with Federer also going out to show the trophy to those on the lawn outside.
Nick, I wasn’t confident that Newcombe was right, which was why I stated it that way.
Fine I tend to agree. I don’t know the full story on Borg, but I recall hearing that his life after tennis was troubled, money problems amongst other things. He even tried a come-back at one stage, but just wasn’t competitive with slower speed around the court and his old wooden racquet. Federer is 6′1″ about the same as Sampras and Borg. I was surprised how short Laver is by comparison.
Lol Nick you beat me to it.
Sampeas won 7 Wimbledon’s to Federer’s 6, and I don’t think Roger has another one in him.
I love how Federer is always excited when he wins, he never takes it for granted.
Sam, 7 Wimbledon’s is about the only record he’s got left to achieve, apart from a grand slam in one year which probably no-one is ever going to do again.
Given Federer’s level of fitness and the way his body seems to be travelling I think another Wimbledon or two is possible. But you never know when his time is going to be over, which is why I stay up watching him while he’s playing.
This time I think the main thing that took the edge off his game was his mind. But he’s more relaxed than he’s ever been at Wimbledon. But it will be interesting to see how Nadal shapes up when/if fit again and whether Murray can advance from where he is.
If Bewdy Newk said that he was drunk: The No.1 ranked players.
Maybe, being Newk, he said/meant the opposite: Virtually no one who has ever lost number one has not regained it.
Or, looking again at the list, maybe he was talking about himself.
Thanks for linking to that list. The thing that stands out to me is Connors’ record. He first became number 1 in 1974 and still had another stint in him nearly ten years later!
Fortunately, living in Europe, I got to see the whole thing during normal waking hours! It was a funny game. It is hard to see how Roddick could have played better, while Federer’s game (like it has been for over a year now) was a little eratic (sublime shots and awful frames in nearly equal measure). Federer’s fitness is incredble – even at the end he looked like he could have continued for hours longer, banging down 2 or 3 aces a game….
Yep, TT, Newk bombed sadly on that one. And his mates in the box were mostly masters of the bleeding obvious or ridiculous mind reading. But at least watching you knew the score, which often you didn’t listening to the Brits on NewsRadio.
LO, yes Federer was still surprisingly fit at the end, which is why I think he’s got a few more slams in him.
What interested me about the list was that I wasn’t aware that Connors had regained the top ranking after Borg departed. I remember Connors saying that he would go to the ends of the earth to hunt Borg down but her never did. At Wimbledon in 1981 Connors lost to Borg in five in the semis and it was then McEnroe who beat Borg in four in the final. I remember Borg sinking to the turf with a haunted look. Even though he was only 25 he was finished.
I always thought the ascendancy then passed to McEnroe and then to Lendl, which is generally right apart from Connors popping up multiple times.
Actually, Brian 8, I was wrong when I said that Federer has won only 6 Wimbledon singles titles.
He was won 7. He won the boy’s title in 1998.
For what its worth, I believe the best player in the world since the first Connors era is as follows.
Connors 74-76
Borg 76-81
McEnroe 81-84
Lendl 85-90 (except for Wilander’s stellar 88 year)
There was a period between 1990 and 1993 when various contenders were considered the best player. Edberg, Becker, and Courier being the main contenders.
Sampras 93-00 (with Agassi at times trumping him)
Again from 2000 til 2003 various players were contenders (including Hewitt, Safin, Agassi)
Then of course, Federer 2003 til now with Nadalbesting him in 2008 up til early this year.
ST, that’s about right, I think. I checked some of the leading players’ win-loss records and it’s surprising how they cluster in the low 80 per cent region. The ranking, without quoting each one is Borg (82.46%), Nadal, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Federer (80.9%). Sampras is a bit further back at 77.4% and Agassi at 76%.
One of the factors is how long they play on after falling away from their best. Wilander, who played on with limited success well into the 90s, is back at 72%. Hewitt is at 74.7%. Edberg and Becker are also mid-70s.
The Courier Mail had match stats of the fifth set of Federer vs Roddick. Federer won 87 points to Roddick’s 79. The aces were 22/8 and the winners 21/17. Unforced errors were 16/14. Federer won 90% of the time on his first serve and 59% on the second. Roddick’s serve results were 80% and 43% respectively.
So you’d have to say Federer was in the ascendancy in the fifth. The dominance of both on serve, however, was such that it could have gone on a lot longer.
The other thing people forget easily is just how good a clay court player Federer is. I think that is because his first success was at wimbledon. But he actually comes into the net fairly irregularly – certainly far less often than Sampras, Becker, Edberg and McEnroe. Watching his games I keep thinking to myself that I would like to see him at the net more often, but I think he enjoys trying to beat people from the back more. Unfortunately, in Nadal, he faces a player that quite often just hits harder for longer and more consistently.
I think Sampras played in a harder era and is the better player on grass, rpobably even on hard court, certainly worse on clay.
I would say that Nadal is showing how a more competitive era might have looked. I think Agassi for instance was a better ground stroke player than Federer, not as good at moving but I can see him beating Federer at the US and Aussie Opens in the mid 90s.
Federer is the more complete player than Sampras but in my view the Sampras serve is still the greatest shot that Tennis has seen, closely followed by the McEnroe drop volley, Edberg back hand volley, Federer running forehand and Agassi return.
I really like watching Nadal but I think it is his total game that is impressive rather than any compartmentalised aspect.
I’d agree with most of the last two comments. Agassi had a period in 1996-7 when he went missing after, according to Wiki, having his most successful win-loss year in 1995.
Nadal, like Borg, runs everything down, has incredible concentration and is just very hard to beat. But his knees are a worry and he might not have all that many years in him. I believe he gets more than double the topspin on his groundstrokes compared to any other player.