Comments on: The Epic Story Of The Roger Federer – Andy Roddick Wimbledon 2009 Final

By: Sri

Sri — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:04:32 +0000

Excellent analysis. Certainly luck plays a factor. But Federer can only be considered lucky if Roddick did something off court that helped him. Or Roddict unlucky if something off court affected him (like Monica Seles getting stabbed).

Unlucky because ball did not bounce correctly? These guys were playing a very long 5th set. They had better read the court by then. Don’t forget Federer was on that side of the court half the times, including the previous game which put him up 15-14. If Federer could get the ball exactly to the spot it bounces bad, then that’s part of the strategy.

That said, it will be interesting to see if Roddick can maintain this level of game. He still relies heavily on his serve.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:38:32 +0000

Found an interesting analysis of the final:

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:33:41 +0000

Quick response to what Larry said about Mac.

I saw John play Sampras in the senior tour finals last February.
He’s still quite fit and played a good match even though he was 50.
He had to do a good deal of scrambling from the back court.

Furthermore, Sampras said after the match that he now trains maybe 15% as much as he did on the ATP tour. Considering the Mac probably trains that much less now it would have been interesting to watch him play live in his prime.

To be in the top of the game, in whatever generation, the players had to be in very good shape. Although I do agree that each generation pushes the level a bit higher.

Also I don’t think that players necassarily get “better” but each generation comes out with their response to the older generation’s style.

Connor: Aggresive baseliner, flat hitter
-Response-
Borg: Very fit retriever, played with heavy topspin
-Response-
Sampras: Serve and volley
-Response-
Agassi: Aggresive baseliner with excellent aim

-Nick

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:28:01 +0000

Great anaysis, Tomaz, as always. One thing I would add about that critical 2nd set tiebreak. Roddick served at 6-2, during the rally he hit a very sharp slice that bounced short and stayed low, a good shot but it was to the forehand side of Fed who ripped it into the forehand corner of Roddick who couldn’t recover. The shot seemed to inspire Fed who had been looking lost at the time. Had Andy played that shot to the backhand of Fed he may not have ever have had to face that high backhand volley that he botched. As far as the Fed- Sampras debate, Sampras was killer on fast courts but never made it out of the semis at the French. Sampras had a better serve, forehands equal, Fed’s got a better backhand, Fed’s maybe a better volley though he doesn’t go to the net as much as Pete did. Fed’s in better physical shape, doesn’t throw up on court, Pete had a medical condition that limited how much training he could do. I feel like athletes keep getting better as time goes on–Lendl was better than Borg ( I consider McEnroe more an artist than athlete), Sampras and Agassi were better than Lendl, Fed’s better than Sampras and if Nadal can recover and stay healthy he could be better than Fed.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:10:22 +0000

Roddick’s missed volley stands out more, but Federer’s missed forehand an inch long into an open court on break point at 5-all in the first set was just as “lucky” for Roddick. Federer would have served next, most likely have held, to take the first set, and he’s such a strong front-runner that the course of rest of the match would have been changed.

By: Thomas Hoeg-Jensen

Thomas Hoeg-Jensen — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:13:42 +0000

I am quite sure Federer had two crucial frame hits in the 2nd set tie break: First at 2-6 he hits a serve return in the left corner 1 meter from the net, I think it was a miss hit. Also, the loop at 5-6 was a frame hit and took a wicked path. Very lucky Federer. I sort of wanted both to win, and agree Federer now seen as the best ever – but in this match Roddick deserved the win and was very unlucky.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:33:12 +0000

Hi Mike,

Yes, Andy was 6-2 up but 2 of those were on Roger’s serve and there was not much he could do. The point where had was most in control and had the best chances of winning was at 5:6.

But that still didn’t lose him the set. He made an unforced error at 6:6 (was it 6:7?) which actually lost the set for him…

By: Mike Boysen

Mike Boysen — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:17:40 +0000

“Roger fought well though and came to 5:6 but then Roddick had a set point on his serve. Andy approached the net but had to deal with an awkward high backhand volley and missed it.”

Tomaz, pretty sure Roddick was up 6-2 in the tie break and had 4 set points and lost the last of them on the high backhand. Maybe I just misread you.

By: K

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:49:54 +0000

Sometimes Federer has looked passive when things aren’t going his way – almost never in Slams – but last year against Nada in Wimbeldonl, he looked beaten before the ned, even though he took it into a fifth set – & in Paris he has often appeared to be uncomfortable (again) against Nadal. Whatever it looks like, however, you don’t win as many matches as Fed without being psychologically tough & against Andy Rodick he was very tough. A Rod could have grabbed it – all but for a whisker – but Fed held on to the whisker until he had the whole cat!

No, I don’t think Fed has had easier oponents than Sampras. Its a bit abstract to argue that any way becasue each player exists in the context of his/her own generation. It’s like saying that Laver was better than either because he playing with smaller, less advanced rackets. That is also true, but ignores how people & their technology “progress” together. Players have to be fitter, stronger &c. Film of matches from the past, including Borg, Mac shows the game played at a comparatively leiisurely pace. Sampras was great, but never won the French Open, Fed is more of an all-round player, but he is a man of his time, just as Sampras, Borg, Laver were of theirs.

By: Tomaz

Tomaz — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:30:51 +0000

Yes, it comes down to just a few critical points. Came across a story here:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2009/06/Wimbledon-Final-Set-By-Set.aspx

Where Roddick says about that missed backhand volley:

“There was a pretty significant wind behind him at that side. It was gusting pretty good at that time. When he first hit it, I thought I wasn’t going to play it. Last minute, it looked like it started dropping. I couldn’t get my racquet around on it. I don’t know if it would have dropped or not.”

These are tough things that we don’t even notice and yet players have to deal with them all the time…