OT: Federer wins Wimbledon Final, Ties Sampras
It would have been so cool to see Murray win it. Feds was too much after they closed the roof. Murray should pounced on the two chances he had to break Federer in the second set.
when he's solidly behind at least 3 guys, he's not just unlucky to have been born at the same time as them. he's just not that good.
that said, i feel for the guy, too. i really thought he'd be able to win one of those break points in the second set and have a shot at closing it out.
Hell yeah, Fed. No question he is the GOAT.
It's insane how one guy can be that much better than everyone else, particularly when he doesn't possess any sort of obvious physical advantage that allows him to dominiate his sport. He's just really, REALLY good. How many people enter these tournaments? Any yet he's in the finals, semis or qf just about every year, with more than his share of wins. Nadal matches up well against him head-to-head, but Roger is still the sport's best player.
All the Grand Slams have 128 entries, so you have to win seven matches. Tennis always seems very top-heavy like this, with the top couple of guys almost always winning. The French Open for awhile was the one that was a little different because of the slower surface, but then Nadal took over there. Now you can almost always pencil in Federer, Djokovic and Nadal in the semis of a Grand Slam, and Murray frequently joins them (but never can beat any of them).
Nadal going down in the first week this time was a shocker.
The top-heavy state is of tennis is a relatively recent thing. Before Federer became invincible anyone in the top 100 could beat each other. Having the top 3-4 seeds in the semis was a rare thing. NOw with Fed, Djoko, Nadal and Murray that's become a common occurance.
Is that true? Before Federer, I remember Pete Sampras completely dominating (aside from the occasional loss to Agassi) all the Slams except the French.
won the French 4 times in a row in the late 70's/early 80's. i think federer is unusually complete but tennis has been top heavy for a long time.
so much fun watching Roger Federer play. It's so incredible how easy it looks to him.
Roger Federer as Religious Experience: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pa…
Pete was more entertaining to watch
but I have a quibble with ESPN's decision to not run a single replay of match point, even after they transitioned to the ceremony and post-match commentary. Kinda an important point, Mr. Producer. Might want to let us take another look at it, especially given that it was a very close play on the line that was called out (the crowd actually thought Murray had won the point, so there was an awkward silent moment after they realized it was over).
but i just watched a low definition replay on youtube and it looks wide. hard to tell, though, so i won't bother embedding. hopefully HD versions turn up soon.
I wanted to see it again too, as I thought it was in also. Murray was out of challenges though, so if it were ruled out, he had no chance. It would have been pretty awkward for Roger to have started celebrating and then for it to have been overturned.
Lost in this big win is the fact that Fed beat Novak, ending a series of bad losses and close losses to him.
but that match was a thing of beauty to behold.
Murray may not have won, but he's done quite well for himself in other ways. His girlfriend, Kim Sears:
