Aussie Open Final

[improbus]

Did anyone else catch the final? It started at 3:30 AM, I woke up at 6:30 and caught the last set and a half. I have to say, I am totally back into tennis because of these two. I haven't seen shot making like this in a long time and Feds and Nadal never disappoint. There are so many layers to their rivalry:
-the different surfaces
-the different styles
-the fact that Federer needs one more title to tie Sampras and he wants it desperately.
-the different personalities
It is VERY reminiscent of Borg (efficient all court master) v. Johnny Mac (petulant young lefty).

[remdog]

Yep. Went to bed at 8:00 PM and set the alarm for 12:30 AM(PST). Got up and watched the match.

Very good match but disappointing to me was how Federer really didn't put up a fight in the 5th set.

Did the same sleep routine for the Nadel/Verdasco match (I'm seriously sleep deprived this weekend). That, to me was the match of the tourney. Great play, both guys going all out, 5 hrs, 14 minutes. Incrediable.

Gotta' give Rafa credit; didn't think he could bounce back in one day after having to gut it out against Fernando.

Rem

[improbus]

Federer kind of reminds me of Peyton Manning. He is the supreme talent and the ultimate cerebral player, but when things don't go his way, he gets this pathetic look that Bill Simmons calls the "Manning Face".

[remdog]

I find Federer interesting in that he has, IMO, the best all around game in tennis. Yet, there is a rock in his path called Rafa Nadal. He seems not to make adjustments to go around that rock. The commentators last night mentioned that Roger was not making adjustments to the game Rafa plays. I agree.

Having said that I think that match last night (or the Nadal/Verdasco match) shows what a physical sport tennis is. Not to dump on other sports but, besides basketball or football, where does one player spend 4-5 hours continually running side to side, up and back and throwing punches with every swing of the racquet. Great athleticism. The amount of physical effort, especially in the heat of Melbourne, is tremendous.

The rivalry between Nadal and Federer is fantastic. In fact, I could see a scenario where Federer brakes Pete Samparas' Grand Slam record and then Rafa (being 5 years younger) breaks Rodger's record.

Rem

[improbus]

To me, it's the most interesting rivalry/matchup in sports

[remdog]

Originally Posted by improbus

To me, it's the most interesting rivalry/matchup in sports

In terms of personal matchups, I couldn't agree more.

Rem

[improbus]

Originally Posted by remdog

In terms of personal matchups, I couldn't agree more.

Rem

I hope to see them in Roland Garros in a few months.

[Newport Red]

Originally Posted by improbus

Federer kind of reminds me of Peyton Manning. He is the supreme talent and the ultimate cerebral player, but when things don't go his way, he gets this pathetic look that Bill Simmons calls the "Manning Face".

I didn't see the Australian Open. Federer did gut it through last year's US Open though. He didn't have his A game until the final. Then wow.

I haven't gotten into tennis the last few years until the US Open. Too bad I'm seeing Federer at the back end of his career.

[remdog]

Originally Posted by improbus

I hope to see them in Roland Garros in a few months.

Clay is Nadal's 'home court' but, if Federer can pull out a win there, it would totally change the dynamic of their rivalry.

Rem

[remdog]

Originally Posted by Newport Red

I didn't see the Australian Open. Federer did gut it through last year's US Open though. He didn't have his A game until the final. Then wow.

I haven't gotten into tennis the last few years until the US Open. Too bad I'm seeing Federer at the back end of his career.

I'm not so sure that it's so much as Roger being at the 'back end' of his career as much as all of the 'young lions' chasing him.

I will say that Nadal seems to have his number at this point but, if Roger makes the right adjustments, he can combat that much as Aggasi created problems for Sampras late in Pete's career. Djovick and Murray are also contenenders but leave a lot unproven at this point. They are dangerous, however.

Verdasco was the 'break through' player of this tourney but he's already 25 years old so the question is not just if he can sustain his game from the Aussie but build upon it.

All in all, an interesting time in men's tennis, IMO.

Rem

[Dom Heffner]

Rafa has figured Roger out. To make the gains on surfaces other than clay is a true feat.

I guess it's inevitable that Federer will eventually win more finals to surpass Sampras, but the competition is getting much better in tennis, which will make it a little tougher to do so.

I'm going to get tarred and feathered for saying this, but Federer played nobody for 3 or 4 years there.

As much as I dislike Pete Sampras, he played in an age of some pretty tough competition- even though he somewhat dominated, on any given day there were players who could beat him.

I'm always surprised at the fact that tennis is not watched more in the U.S. There isn't a more demanding sport, and the things these guys can do with a tennis racket is nothing but amazing.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Rafa has figured Roger out. To make the gains on surfaces other than clay is a true feat.

I guess it's inevitable that Federer will eventually win more finals to surpass Sampras, but the competition is getting much better in tennis, which will make it a little tougher to do so.

I'm going to get tarred and feathered for saying this, but Federer played nobody for 3 or 4 years there.

As much as I dislike Pete Sampras, he played in an age of some pretty tough competition- even though he somewhat dominated, on any given day there were players who could beat him.

I'm always surprised at the fact that tennis is not watched more in the U.S. There isn't a more demanding sport, and the things these guys can do with a tennis racket is nothing but amazing.

Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest tennis player of all time. It has taken Nadal quite a few years to catch up to Federer on all surfaces. Some has been Nadal getting better but some also has to do with Federer aging.

IMO the reason Americans haven't adapted tennis more is because there isn't a great American player. Roddick is a bum. The guy has more excuses for poor play than anyone I know. He seems more content to be the player and celebrity he is right now. If a dynamic American isn't at the top of Tennis Americans won't be compelled to watch the sport.

[Dom Heffner]

Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest tennis player of all time.

I want to go there with you, but who has he beaten?

It would be nice to say that someone was so much better than everryone else that he's the greatest, but if Federer wasn't around, who would have dominated? Roddick?

[remdog]

I've been playing/watching tennis for more than 35 years (my knees and ankles remind me about that everyday ). I only saw Laver towards the end of his career and he was great then as well. If the sport had been open then and Rod had been able to play once he went pro he would be the one with all of the records.

My favorite all-time player is Bjorn Borg. What a solid game and I loved that you could never tell if he was winning or losing----a great weapon vis a vie wearing down your opponent, IMO.

For most Americans, the peak of men's tennis was the foursome of Sampras, Aggasi, Courrier and Chang---four guys that came up together and pretty much dominated tennis as a whole for years. Yet, Americans didn't watch that much more tennis then than they do now.

I think that Aggasi has been the favorite tennis player for most Americans over the last 25 years because he had both personallity as well as ability. Plus, he 're-invented' himself later in his career and had great success.

Tennis is one of those games that, if you haven't tried it, you don't really know how hard it is. Most guys play some baseball, football, basketball as kids. Even if it's just Little League, you've experienced what it takes. I don't think that's true of tennis, although I do think that's changeing.

These guys play 4 hr + matches and leave their guts on the court---sometimes litterally. They have body cramps, twisted ankles, torn ligaments and shoulders that cry out in pain. On the pro level this is not some cute country club sport---it's a major physical test.

Equipment has also changed the game. Almost no one 'serves and volleys' anymore. New racquet technology has made groundstrokes a major weapon with the speed these guys can hit the ball. In the early 80's a guy I played with developed the first battery powered ball machine. As part of his business plan they tracked the speed of balls on groundstrokes. It averaged 55 mph on the pro tour. Yesterday many of the ground strokes were in the 80-90 mph range. And even though the serves have also gotten bigger, the ability to strike the ball cleanly with these new racquets has partnered with the speed to make coming in behind a serve a tough play.

I agree that Roddick has been a disappointment. But people look at that serve and think he should win easily. Refer to my point above. The problem with Roddick is that the rest of his game, while solid, isn't exceptional, unlike the guys above him that he consistently loses to. He's either going to have to improve the rest of his game (which I don't think he can do), his fitness (which he reportedly did this winter but it didn't help against Federer) or he's going to have to change his tactics (like take a chance and be the only true serve and volley guy out there).

Rem

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

I want to go there with you, but who has he beaten?

It would be nice to say that someone was so much better than everryone else that he's the greatest, but if Federer wasn't around, who would have dominated? Roddick?

Is there a "who has he beaten" question because of the talent out there or because of Federer's actual dominance? Its the same thing with Woods. Is he dominant because a watered down playing field or just because he is much better than the rest? Would Roddick be considered a better player had he won 4 majors? How many more majors would Roddick have it it weren't for Federer? You can ask the same question with Nadal.