Roger Federer breaks British hearts
Columnist 
Switzerland's Roger Federer reacts to breaking serve in the fourth set of his men's singles final match against Britain's Andy Murray (Image: AFP Leon Nea)
Related coverage
“I’m getting closer.” The choked words from the highly-emotional Andy Murray after he’d been beaten 4-6 7-5 6-3 6-4 in 3 hours 24 by Roger Federer in the Wimbledon singles final last night.
The first Brit since Bunny Austin 74 years ago to reach the decider at the home of tennis, the Scot didn’t let down any one of his millions of supporters, he gave it his all.
It could have been a vastly different story had Murray won the second set. He had every chance but couldn’t convert any one of four break points, while Federer had made 24 unforced errors in those two sets to Murray’s eight.
The critical period was 1-1 in the third set when rain stopped play.
The sixth game of that set lasted 20 minutes with 10 deuces on Murray’s serve. Federer eventually broke on his sixth break point.
Murray had missed the chance to topple the tennis titan from Switzerland, who racked up his seventh Wimbledon crown, and regained the world number one ranking for the 286th week of his career, to share both records with the idol of his younger days – Pete Sampras.
At 30, and not having won a Slam since the 2010 Australian Open – nine Slams ago – Federer is a remarkably resilient tennis player.
The way he played in the semis against the previous number one Novak Djokovic was sublime tennis, right off the top shelf. As crisp and authorative as he’s ever been.
He wasn’t up to that exalted standard last night, especially losing the first set. But when push came to shove from there on it was Federer who pulled out the big serve, and made the critical passing shot, or volley.
In the end it was Federer’s 62 winners to 46, his 69% first serving to 56%, and 151 points to 137 that saw him home for his record 17th Slam, three more Sampras.
Among the host of records he owns, Federer has reached 24 Slam finals in 37 tournaments between Wimbledon 2003, and last night. The closest is Ivan Lendl with 19 from 40 between the 1981 French Open, and the 1991 Australian Open.
Ironically Lendl is Murray’s coach, and he lost four Slam finals before he won his first of eight. Last night was Murray’s fourth Slam final loss, what odds he can win his next final?
A salute to the packed Wimbledon centre court crowd. As much as they were willing Andy Murray to win a Wimbledon crown to break the British drought since Fred Perry in 1936, they were very responsive to every one of Roger Federer’s winners, and especially at the presentation.
Suncorp please note.
- Explore:
- Andy Murray, Roger Federer, Tennis
July 9th 2012 @ 8:19am
Sneaky Pete said | July 9th 2012 @ 8:19am | Report comment
It’s great to see Fed back at number 1. Men’s tennis is at an unbelievably high standard at the moment. He’s my favourite champion of all time across all sports.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
July 10th 2012 @ 11:32am
zacbrygel said | July 10th 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
Ye I’m with you Sneaky Pete. He is so good to watch, such a great player and yet a perfect role model.
July 9th 2012 @ 9:14am
Australian Rules said | July 9th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Rapt that Fed got up…classic tennis player, more enjoyable to watch than anyone.
And joy…the wait continues for the poms.
Don’t like Murray at all. His face always looks like he’s just had a bad shot of tequila. He’s a level below Fed, Raf and Jok.
July 9th 2012 @ 10:15am
Colin N said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:15am | Report comment
“And joy…the wait continues for the poms”.
What do you mean? Jonny Marray became the firsr British male at Wimbledon to win in the men’s doubles in 76 years. Don’t you mean the wait is over?
July 9th 2012 @ 11:15am
Australian Rules said | July 9th 2012 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Haha
With the greatest respect to Huss in 05, Woodbridge in 2002-04 (and Woodies before that)….we’re still waiting for a winner since Hewy.
July 9th 2012 @ 9:27am
Winston said | July 9th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
How well did Fed play in the 3rd and 4th sets? After he fought his way through the 2nd set he was absolutely unplayable after that. Anyone saw that forehand half volley from the baseline for a down the line winner? Just UNBELIEVABLE SHOT!!
July 9th 2012 @ 10:01am
clipper said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Federer seems to have regained his confidence. Did the early exit of Nadal help him think that a roadblock was taken away and that he could win the tournament.
David – comparing Wimbledon and Suncorp crowds is like comparing people watching Shakespeare at the Opera House to people watching Adam Sandler at the multiplex – they’re very different beasts.
July 9th 2012 @ 10:17am
David Lord said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Got that right clipper, vey different beasts. Wimbledon crowds respect their sport and it’s competitors, Suncorp is so one-eyed, they do rugby league no justice.
July 9th 2012 @ 2:24pm
Michael said | July 9th 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
The Wimbledon crowd are cultured plain and simple. Qld are bogans that have a chip against the “rest” as they have an inferiority complex.
July 9th 2012 @ 3:24pm
matt h said | July 9th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
I believe the main difference is beer. Just saying.
July 9th 2012 @ 11:46pm
Cube said | July 9th 2012 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
Yeah, it’s full strength at Wimbledon.
July 9th 2012 @ 2:37pm
WoobliesFan said | July 9th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
lol
Justice comes with winning Lordy……not from pity.
Never has, and never will, a QLD side – win or lose – ever go across the border seeking or expecting “justice” from opposing fans. Like we give two hoots about such irrelevant things.
You cockroaches really have taken this losing streak quite badly. Chin up, only a few more years to go.
Btw, Fed = umero uno. Murray might get a one title before he hangs his racket.
July 9th 2012 @ 10:19am
ohtani's jacket said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Since November, Federer has won 8 titles on tour which is twice as much as both Nadal and Djokovic. I wouldn’t say he’s the best player on tour, but he’s had the best results. He got a break in not having to play both Djokovic and Nadal in this tournament and the roof meant he could play indoors where he’s been unbeatable of late, but he’s been playing well since Djokovic knocked him out of the US Open.
July 9th 2012 @ 11:34am
Brian said | July 9th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
It was a very even game outdoors and then very one sided indoors. Quite consistent with Federer’s form of the last few years where he has been unable to beat the other top guys outdoors but been unbeatable indoors.
Having said that great to see him go back to No 1, win a 17th slam and break the record for most No 1 wins. Without any doubt now – the greatest ever.
Also great fortitude on Federer’s part for continuing to believe and strive these last 2 years. With 16 slams and a new family it would have been tempting to put the feet up
July 9th 2012 @ 11:35am
tonysalerno said | July 9th 2012 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Another fractured fairytale for the sporting world.
Andy Murray played a very good much but was worn down by arguably the best tennis player of all time.
Murray is indeed getting closing after taking his first set in a grand slam final but i don’t believe he has the game to beat the big three yet.
His presentation interview was very moving and emotional but the Brit will be a champion at the all England club… one day
July 9th 2012 @ 11:45am
Cameron said | July 9th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Looks like Murray is back to being called a Scot by the English.
July 9th 2012 @ 12:01pm
Kev said | July 9th 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
You forget that he is a Scot when he loses and British when he wins.
July 9th 2012 @ 9:49pm
Rowdy said | July 9th 2012 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Excellent sledge! Never heard that one before!
July 9th 2012 @ 12:09pm
Bondy said | July 9th 2012 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
That third set game that lasted twenty minutes some female sets are over by then. It’s great to see a sportsmen genuinely affected by the crowd Murray that is, he got upset most in thanking the people who where there in he’s speech, I cant cop Federer a great champion but he looks built for the anti whaling movement ,too clean and weird for me.
July 9th 2012 @ 12:34pm
Jason Cave said | July 9th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
I don’t think I’ve seen a better standard of tennis than what Roger Federer gave against Novak Djokovic in the semi final. Federer is just simply amazing to watch. While his performance in the final against Andy Murray was a little below what he produced in the semi final, Federer’s shot-making was stunning.
July 9th 2012 @ 12:38pm
Frank O'Keeffe said | July 9th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
What makes the special moments in sport so special is that the fairytale stories actually rarely happen.
Murray will get a Grand Slam eventually. Things panned-out quite easily for him this Wimbledon. He had an easy draw, and in the end he had to beat Federer, which is about as easy as it gets these days with the stranglehold Nadal and Djokovic have had on the Grand Slams. When Tim Henman was playing he always played his best at Wimbledon because the crowd support is incredible. Murray is a bit the same. I felt for him when he started crying at the end.
I actually thought Murray was going to go two sets up, and if he did that I don’t think Federer could have won. There was talk that it had been over half a century since someone come back from two sets down in a Wimbledon final to win. Murray had two break points in one game in the second set which he didn’t take. In the end the match was decided in those last 15 minutes in the second set.
When Federer first started dominating I was one of the few who said, ‘Wait a while before you call him the greatest.’ I’m also a huge believer that Pete Sampras was horribly under-appreciated for most of his career. He wasn’t as complete as Federer, but his game was an absolute monster in terms of imposing himself. And I still feel bad for Sampras because if he was still around, Federer wouldn’t dominate him I don’t think. I’m even suspicious whether Federer would have a better record against him. That’s how highly I rated Sampras.
But there’s no doubt Federer has just accomplished so much more than Sampras, done it on all surfaces… and he just keeps on going and going and going. This might be his last Grand Slam, but if it is, he’ll still keep going and going and going. I thought Nadal might overtake him on the Grand Slam, but in hindsight Nadal’s going to have problems winning anywhere but the French Open with all his competition.
You can argue who would win in a one-on-one match with both at their peak, but now there’s no doubting it that Federer has had a far, far greater and superior career. I know Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon, but Sampras was passed it then. It was like Ali v Holmes. Personally, I think they’d be close one-on-one, both at their peak. I’d love to see them both at their peak at Wimbledon. But yeah… Federer’s just so far above the rest.
Laver’s the best before the Open Era, Federer is the greatest of the Open Era.
July 9th 2012 @ 3:18pm
Brian said | July 9th 2012 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
I think Federer is way ahead of Sampras. Sampras was good but he benefited from Aggassi going AWOL for awhile. Indeed if Nadal had done that Federer would probably have at least another 3 slams.
Federer has won 17 when every time he comes up against Nadal or Djokovic. Sampras was also as far from dominant never making the final of the French in an era when guys like Kafelnikov & Moya were winning it. I don’t think Sampras ever managed 3 slams in one year.
One thing I do agree is that Sampras was much better at handling pressure, he won do often by producing when it counted. Federer on the other hand has lost so many clutch points – he has won his 17 by being the greatest ever at the game itself.
July 9th 2012 @ 3:34pm
Frank O'Keeffe said | July 9th 2012 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
That used to be my criticism of Federer.
When he first started winning Grand Slams he was playing people like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick, who were the former world number ones. They’re all good players, but not like Agassi was. Federer won his first few Slams against some very weak opponents compared the Sampras. Mark Philliposis (?), Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick, etc.
Sampras was better at winning the close matches, as you said. That’s something many people don’t remember him for. I saw many Sampras matches where he was down a break in the final set, but found a way out. Federer is like Sampras in that he can find an ace when he needs it, as a kind of relief! But Sampras was better than him at serving, and finding an ace when needed.
Sampras was also better at the net. I don’t know how he’d go these days at Wimbledon as the courts are much slower, and there are more baseline games. But when Sampras came to the net he grew five inches taller! I also loved Sampras’ running forehand.
It’s sad how history remembers Pete Sampras. He never showed much emotion, wasn’t loved like Federer, never won the French Open, and went about things in a business-like fashion.
Whether Federer would beat him one-on-one is one thing, but there’s no way Federer would dominate him.
My opinion is that Federer was more complete, but Pete’s strengths were stronger than Federer’s (serve, net game, running forehand), and more importantly, Sampras knew how to play to his strengths.
July 9th 2012 @ 4:35pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 9th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Whether it was deserved or not, the public found Sampras boring. He didn’t have the classic matches and great rivalries that other players have had and his style of play didn’t excite the public. It was those awful matches with Goran that caused so many of the changes in the Wimbledon surface that we see today. I think you overrate his era a bit and the Agassi rivalry was even more one sided than Federer/Nadal.
July 9th 2012 @ 5:56pm
Frank O'Keeffe said | July 9th 2012 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
- The Sampras/Aggssi rivalry was more one sided than Federer/Nadal because Sampras was so great.
- Like it or not, on grass, Goran was a much better player than Hewitt on grass (who won Wimbledon), Roddick, or Safin. In fact everyone was saying Goran would win that year because he kept thundering down aces. Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin were the three world number ones before Federer. I’d also say for his very brief peak at the top, Rafter was better than those three too.
- I grant that now mens tennis is as hard as it’s ever been. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, may end-up being remembered in the top 5 best players in the modern games. In fact I think Federer and Nadal are… Djokovic is catching-up. But funnily enough, Federer isn’t running through Grand Slams like he used to. Hmm…
- Sampras had some great matches… not as much as Federer, but I recall a couple of great five setters that made me love tennis, like his comeback against Courier at the Aussie Open (2nd most prestigious) when he was 0-2 sets down. Or his famous four-setter against Agassi at the U.S. Open, where all sets went to tiebreakers.
- I agree the public didn’t find him entertaining. That’s a shame. I did. And in a one-on-one match I wouldn’t want to judge the difference between Sampras and Federer, because there isn’t much between them.
July 9th 2012 @ 6:14pm
GCS said | July 9th 2012 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
I never got why some of the public thought Sampras was boring. Not too many players out there are able to pull off the slam dunk smash that he could.
Give me him over Agassi anyday. They called Agassi the Las Vegas showman, but there was nothing showy about his game, or him after he lost his hair.
July 9th 2012 @ 10:29pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
I’m not convinced that Sampras had a winning record over Agassi solely because he was so great. Sampras/Agassi was a match-up of contrasting styles — Sampras’ serve and volley and Agassi’s return and baseline game. Nowdays serve and volley may be dead, but in the 90s with the faster courts I always thought Sampras had an advantage over Agassi because of his style.
I’m not so sure Ivanisevic was better than the players you mentioned. What’s the difference between Goran and Roddick? Roddick had a pretty natural game for Wimbledon even with the slower courts and the ball changes. Sampras really didn’t play against that much higher level competition. Federer for example has beaten more top 10 players in his Wimbledon runs than Sampras did. The difference between them wasn’t the level of their opposition but the different court speeds, IMO.
Of course Federer isn’t winning three Grand Slams a year anymore. He’s almost 31 and there are two other great players in their primes.
July 9th 2012 @ 6:07pm
clipper said | July 9th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Agree with you Brian, have often relayed the same points. Not only did he not make a FO final, he only made the semis once, quite often going out early. But the big difference is that he only managed ten consecutive QF GF appearances – Federer has 34 so far – the very model of consistency.
Frank says that he won his slams against weak opponents citing Hewitt and Roddick but Sampras won slams against Pioline and Todd Martin – I’d argue that they were weaker than Hewitt and Roddick. To then argue that the above players were not as good as Agassi is correct – not many are, but equally not many are as good as Nadal of Djokovic. It is a shame that Agassi went AWOL and didn’t play Sampras at his peak in a GS from the US in 95 to Wimbledon in 99.
July 9th 2012 @ 6:22pm
Frank O'Keeffe said | July 9th 2012 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Sampras only had 10 consecutive QF appearances because he wasn’t great on clay. And admittedly that goes against him. I do admit he occasionally laid an egg, where Federer hasn’t. French Open aside, he did occasionally have an early exit etc.
I agree mens tennis is harder than ever now, but have you noticed how few GS Federer has won since Nadal and Djokovic? I don’t think he’d have 12 Grand Slams if he had to face these guys back in 2003-2007.
July 9th 2012 @ 10:26pm
clipper said | July 9th 2012 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Surprisingly if you take the FO out, the longest consecutive streak Sampras had was 8. Federer has still won 5 GS since 2007,and Nadal has been a force since 2005, sharing 2 GS a piece before 2007.
It’s rather speculative to say how Federer would’ve done if they were both around in his early days, just like you could argue would Sampras have had as many Grand Slams if Agassi was at his peak the whole time.
You could also argue that Federers high standard has lifted Nadal and Djokovics game so that they have become all time greats, not something that happened with Sampras.
July 10th 2012 @ 1:33pm
Adam said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Frank, as others have mentioned it’s a bit silly to question how many slams Federer would have won if he was playing Djok and Nadal during those years.
Federer is about 5-6 years older than these guys, so of course careers will overlap but you have to keep in mind that Federer is over 30 now, and for all his brilliance, not as consistently great as he used to be.
Nadal has always had his measure on clay but it’s very even on other surfaces, and very much in favour of Federer on indoor hard courts.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:04pm
Let the One King Rule said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Frank – I imagine there’d be quite a lot, actually. Nadal has been thereabouts since 2004, and it’s worth noting that Djokovic’s rise coincided with a period of time in which Federer was obviously down on form, struggling to cope with familial commitments, age, and a bout with mono. Both players have been able to take advantage of Federer’s decreased mobility and fitness with his greater age. Nadal might’ve been able to fare well against Federer in his prime (the forehand to backhand is always going to be an issue), but I don’t think you could say the same about Djokovic. The consistency Federer was able to produce in his heyday was superhuman.
July 11th 2012 @ 7:08pm
amazonfan said | July 11th 2012 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
“Laver’s the best before the Open Era, Federer is the greatest of the Open Era.”
I would definitely agree with that. IMO Laver was the greatest of all time, however Federer is certainty the best of the Open Era.