By Dave James
July 6th 2009 @ 8:18am
Get a Roar profile
View The Roar's top writers by sport.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Related coverage
Federer makes Grand Slam history
Roger Federer made history overnight when he defeated a determined Andy Roddick 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 16-14 to win a sixth Wimbledon title and claim a record 15th Grand Slam crown in a classic final.
But the 27-year-old Swiss second seed was given a huge fright by the American sixth seed who led by [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
© 2008 AFP
(27)
Spiro Zavos said | July 6th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
I listened to the great final on the radio in bed. The commentary on the BBC World Service was tremendous. you had the feeling of being there. It was in a way more vivid than watching it on the television. On radio, and I’m sure on television and live, this was the greatest Wimbledon final of them all. Roger Federer broke the service of Andy Roddick just once in the match. But that was the vital time to give him game, set and match in the final set.
Brett McKay said | July 6th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
As if it was ever in doubt, Federer is most certainly a great of the game. That said, you can’t help but feel for Andy Roddick, who has basically played the perfect tourament. It’s still a surprise to me that a player like Roddick, who has been in and around the top 10 for ever (or so it seems), but only has one major to his name. Perhpas Roddick is to Federer and Nadal what Jim Courier was to Sampras and Agassi??
Benjamin Conkey said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
That second set tie-break is the reason Federer is a champion. He was probably the only one, who believed he could come back from 6-2 down. He continues to surprise. We all knew he had a great serve, but to launch 50-odd aces is unbelievable.
The interesting thing is that Roddick didn’t choke. When he lost that second set I was expecting Federer to run away with it. But Roddick was superb..and it’s such a shame that he couldn’t win.
In the end, Fed just wanted it too much. He won 10 more points in the match…which is surprising..given how close the score was and given..he didn’t break Roddick’s serve until the very last game.
I wonder if anyone else noticed how angry he was when Federer said “I know how you feel” in his speech? I swear Roddick said something like..”No you don’t…You’ve won 6 Wimbledon’s”…
Chop said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Hi Conks, I laughed when I heard Roddick say that. I do feel sorry for Roddick, but saying that I would’ve felt sorry for whoever lost that match. The last two Wimbledon finals have been something to behold. I just wish there was more tennis on Grass.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
That was a fantastic performance from Roddick and I thought he deserved it more than Federer.
Personally, I think there should be a fifth set tiebreaker at Wimbledon, because I don’t think Federer truly broke Roddick. It was a sad end realising Roddick couldn’t play anymore and I don’t think anyone should lose a final like that.
Having said that, Roddick fell apart in the second set tiebreaker and he had Federer on the ropes a number of times in the fifth. Roger served amazingly well.
I wonder how history wil judge his period from the 2008 Australian Open to the 2009 Aussie Open. I guess it depends on how many more Grand Slams Federer has left in him and whether Nadal can return to prominence.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Oh, and despite what people are saying, that wasn’t a classic Wimbledon final by any means.
I figure most people lost their patience in the fifth set.
Benjamin Conkey said | July 6th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Ohtani’s Jacket, I agree, but don’t you think it was weird that Federer couldn’t return Roddick’s serve? I know he kept serving at his body at well over 220kph..but Fed has handled it with ease in the past. Also it was weird that Federer served so many aces. I have a feeling the grass was playing so fast..and made it extremely difficult to return. Maybe the groundskeeper didn’t water the court enough.
I didn’t lose my patience! That was an amazing 5th set. Both players held their nerve…I didn’t think it was ever going to end.
Brian said | July 6th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
I loved Roddick’s comment when Federer said he knows how he feels because of last year. Roddick joked, but yeah you had already won 5. I agree with Othani not exactly a classic final in that both guys relied on the serve. No Aggassi or Nadal winning nearly every point in general play. Having said that 15 Slams is amazing, better what we had than the 3 sets I thought we would get
ohtani's jacket, said | July 6th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
There was an interesting graph during the match comparing Roddick’s serve with the previous times he’d played Federer in the final, and last night he was hitting his serves close to the “T” as opposed to outwide. He was also serving a fair few “body shots” that Federer barely managed to protect himself from. He definitely had a serving strategy and executed it extremely well.
The courts were dry this year and even faster than the previous few years. It was a classic serve and return contest, as opposed to a baseline struggle, which is something Federer mentioned in the press conference.
I felt bad for Roddick. Federer was trying to be gracious in the trophy ceremony, but how does a guy who’s won 15 Grand Slam titles and 6 Wimbledon titles console a guy who just wants to win another major?
Guy_Chev said | July 6th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
OJ – Not an epic Wimbledon final? Are you serious? It had so many twists and turns:
1) Roddick won the first set – not many people would’ve been expecting that,
2) He should’ve won the second set, but Federer came back in an amazing piece of brilliance to save 4 set points – not many people would’ve expected that, even with Federer. It proved his class.
3) The fifth set went for about 90 minutes (the longest fifth set in Wimbledon history), it went to 16-14 and I for one thought Roddick had it considering Federer hadn’t broken his serve all match.
That to me is an epic final. I couldn’t take me eyes off the screen.
I’d be interested to see your thoughts on whether any of you thought Hawkeye was wrong on a couple of occassions? There were two times when Roddick challenged and got it wrong. But his reaction showed that he thought Hawkeye wasn’t accurate. And on one of those instances I thought the ball was shown to be out when Hawkeye called it in. Maybe it’s my eyesight, but it looked incorrect.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 6th 2009 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
It was an epic Federer/Roddick match and it was certainly compelling to see Roddick play perhaps the best match of his life, but I think Rafter/Ivanišević (2001), Federer/Nadal (2008) and even Federer/Nadal (2007) from this decade alone were better finals.
Obviously, it was much better than the three set victory most people were expecting, but there wasn’t a ton of great shotmaking. It was a serviing battle.
I didn’t notice whether hawkeye was wrong or not, but I dislike the way Federer uses it. The only thing I’ve noticed about Roddick and hawkeye is that he always claims he could’ve gotten to the ball.
Who Needs Melon said | July 6th 2009 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Just read this article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/tennis/articles/2009/07/06/1246732273739.html
And this bit of it: “One year later, Federer beat Mark Philippoussis in the Wimbledon final for his first Grand Slam title, and he was on his way”.
What a contrast in paths those two – Federer and Philippoussis – have taken since that day!
Chop said | July 6th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
I absolutely disagree about people saying it wasn’t a classic match. If I hadn’t stayed up all night the previous night to watch the ladies, and Friday night to watch the mens semi’s I might have had enough in the tank to push through until the end, I had to watch it this morning before work.
I was excited to see more netplay than recent years, that’s the way Grass court tennis is supposed to be….
Rory said | July 6th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
I guess it just proved Federer’s quality that he could end up winning that match when for large parts of it Roddick looked the likely champ. It was a “guts it out” performance as Roddick said post match. Roddick’s serving was amazing, but Federer’s return was ordinary. He had a number of break points in Roddick’s serve in the first set and didn’t convert. Had 15/30 and 30/30 heaps of times. Seemed to want to take the pace off the serve and float the returns back to Roddic’s backhand constantly. Was probably tight through nerves. His serve got him through and often he held more convincingly than Roddick. You have to feel for Roddick, but the facts are that if you want to win a Grand Slam in this era you have to beat RF to do it. Has been the case since ‘03.
OJ, I don’t think history will be too harsh to Federer regarding his “down” period 2008/early 2009. After the semi loss in Melbourne in 08, he still made every GS final, winning the US and going down in 5 close sets in two others. Would be a great year for anyone else.
Veuve said | July 6th 2009 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
I wanted to cry for Roddick. He worked so hard but the master of masters was triumphant. Awesome tennis by them both but I think last year’s final with Nadal was a more thrilling game. I hope Roddick wins the U.S. Open.
joeb said | July 6th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Would’ve been very interesting if Roddick had’ve won that second set because at that stage the spectators seemed to be right behind the American which sort of subdued Fed, but the infallible Swiss time piece has a habit of hanging in and those 50 aces – Newk was saying the record stands at about 51 – clearly saved his skin, pity ’cause I was hoping for a Roddick victory. As someone else said during the commentary, Mark Woodforde probably, Roddick had the luxury this time around of reaching the final by literally slipping ‘under the radar’. When Nadal returns it’ll make things somewhat more difficult one suspects for the likes of both Roddick and Hewitt, among others. Brilliant final, though both Newk and Fred Stolle sounded they couldn’t wait for that 5th set to end. (No OJ, let’s keep the 5th set in finals as is, a true test of endurance and courage. Amazing final – it’s a wonder they’re still not playing!)
BennO said | July 6th 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
Benjamin Conkey
I agree, Roddick didn’t take Federer’s remark kindly at all. Perhaps I’m harsh but I was a bit disappointed in Roddick then. I mean, I totally understand his disappointment (rather like Rafter in 01) and Federer probably has no idea how he felt, but it wasn’t very gracious. A bit of a dummy spit. That’s a harsh judgement, I realise but I think I’ve seen that before in Roddick. Maybe it’s a hatred of losing that makes him such a good tennis player.
It was one of those games where it was sad that there was only one winner but as I saw it (and I only saw the last 7 or so games) it came down to fitness which makes Federer a deserving winner. I remember Agassi beat Rafter in a fantastic semi at the Oz open when Rafter had clawed his way back from a set down to be 2-1 up I think, and then cramped up and Agassi won the match. Afterwards Agassi was asked if he felt that Rafter deserved to win (or something) and he said not at all, that fitness is as much a part of tennis as serving so if he can outlast an opponent it’s as valid as thundering down 50 aces. I think it’s a fair call and it looked like Federer basically out lasted Roddick in the last.
joeb said | July 6th 2009 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Benno, “and it looked like Federer basically out lasted Roddick in the last.” Stolle made the point re the shadows creeping across the court in the 5th, and that Roddick in that last game was serving directly into the sun, still Fed handled it and Andy didn’t.
BennO said | July 6th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
Joeb
yeah that looked pretty distracting to me too. I think Roddick hit the frame to lose match point, perhaps that had something to do with it. But I thought Federer had more energy on the court. Anytime a point went to rally, Federer won it, Roddick was winning points with big serves and little else. I thought he just looked buggered and was relying on aces and unreturnables. Well that was my take anyway.
joeb said | July 6th 2009 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
BennO, There was an extra dimension to Roddick’s game this morning as Fred, Newk and Woodforde highlighted; the kid from Nebraska was returning with shots down the line (both forehand and backhand) which he’s rarely done in the past, and one of those volleys he returned so close to the ground had Newk saying that it looked easy but actually must have involved much practice. The only way Roddick is going to win another Slam is to continue getting the best coaches in the game to help improve his overall game. It was probably in the quarter versus Hewitt that Newk also noted he couldn’t remember Roddick ever serve so well, so like a muso (pianist, guitarist, whatever) it comes down to endless practice to improve your game. Hopefully Ch Nine show the US Open ‘live’ so we can see how he improves; he’s just short of his 27th birthday, August something, so there’s still time to add to his one Slam trophy.
beaver fever said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:37am | Report comment
I play quite a bit of tennis and i was quite bored by the end of it, maybe they should change the name to serving because there was very little tennis being played, i believe its a bit of a farce. Hardcourt tennis is much more interesting to watch, you actually see great rallies reguarly
Having said that Federer is the best there has ever been, the depth in mens tennis runs very deep and he is the grestest ever, he has it all.
I would be interested in what sort of a price Federer is to not win another major because i dont think he will win any more.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:50am | Report comment
Really? What makes you think that beaver?
beaver fever said | July 7th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
ohtani’s jacket, said
Really? What makes you think that beaver?
No real reason, just a feeling, Nadal will be back, he is having a kid, mens tennis runs deep and a coming of time when players dont fear him as much of playing him.
Chop said | July 7th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Beaver, the beauty of modern tennis is the variety of surfaces the game is now played on. Having played lots of tennis as well, I love playing on a real grass tennis court.
With the quality of the serving in the final, it would have been a serving shoot out regardless of the surface (except maybe Clay).
I think Nadal is on the decline, his game is so physically demanding he can’t keep going at the standard he has set himself. I think his career will go along similar lines to Lleyton Hewitt. Now injuries have crept in, he won’t have the physical capabilities to keep in touch with a guy like Federer who looks like he’s always got plenty in reserve…..
beaver fever said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
Chop…. i agree tennis is now played on many surfaces, i as well love playing on grass if only how my feet feel afterwards but i am not sure that a mens open in OZ or New york would be such a servefest. Dont get me wrong i love serving aces as much as the next guy but as a viewer i want to see tennis.rally
I think it must be a concern for tennis authorities regarding how serving is going, i think tennis is lucky that squash is not really worldwide and does not translate to TV that well.
Rory said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Beaver Fever, I see what you mean, but how would you account for the fact that tennis has pretty much gone down the gurgler in terms of popularity in Australia now, when this is a time of generally long rallies (i.e. Aus Open, US open, French, so many other hard and clay court tournies)? Compare it to the 50’s and 60’s, when tennis was largely played on grass and the serve/volleyer prevailed. Rallies were generally short (admittedly the serve wasn’t as powerful with wooden racquets) yet Tennis was a major sport here. There were years when we could have feasibly filled all 8 Q-finalists at Wimbledon and Lleyton Hewitt at his peak would have been lucky to make the national top 5 or 6. Could it be that, overall, Aussies like a more explosive style of tennis?
beaver fever said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Rory, the tennis club that i play for in Perth i believe would be representative of most tennis clubs in Perth, a ageing membership and a ageing volunteer committee, i dont know the reason for its loss of popularity but i do remember when every country town had tennis courts usually grass near the church or churches and were usually at the centre of the towns social life.
People go to church less, kids leave country towns, plenty of other sports came on the scene, tennis is really quite a hard game to master, its not a team game like footy of cricket, the rest of the world now plays tennis not just the Commonwealth and the USA.
etc etc etc