11/21/24
July 09, 2007
Five is a magic number: : Roger Federer won his fifth consecutive Wimbledon championship Sunday, tying Bjorn Borg's record for most consecutive Wimbledon championships. The win over Nadal also marked the first time that Federer has needed five sets to secure a championship.
posted by lil_brown_bat to tennis at 12:12 PM - 10 comments
One is the loneliest number, though. Interesting that this trophy also tied Federer with Borg for third most Grand Slam titles at 11--will he catch up to Sampras by winning a sixth Wimbledon, or finally break through and win at Roland Garros?
posted by billsaysthis at 02:08 PM on July 09, 2007
The lack of competition in Men's tennis is one of the reasons he wins so much. If he had played with Conners, McEnroe, Bjorg, Ash et el, he wouldn't be as dominate as he is but he is without a doubt "the best of his ERA. Lets just see how long he can stay on top.
posted by bry66 at 08:24 PM on July 09, 2007
It's hard to compare different eras. For all we know, Conners, McEnroe, et al would be playing second tier to Federer and Nadal if they were playing with the current crop of players.
posted by jmd82 at 10:53 PM on July 09, 2007
An interesting view on the whole thing is brought up in this article. Synopsis: There is a distinct possibility that at the end of this year, Rafa may be the world #1, not Roger. Considering how close their levels of play seem to be getting, I would call this appropriate. But we will see what the US Open brings.
posted by boredom_08 at 01:02 AM on July 10, 2007
Some people said it was a classic final. I thought bits of it were great, but only the close score line kept me watching. Nadal had two break points twice in the final set, so it was there for him to win. At times Federer looked like he was phoning it in, and got distracted by the Hawkeye reviews, which gave Nadal a chance as well. But he pulled out the big serves when he had to - what was the final count, something like 25 to 1 on aces?
posted by owlhouse at 01:29 AM on July 10, 2007
I find it interesting that Borg never won the US Open and that the French is so elusive to a player of Federer's calibur. If these two had such success on grass courts (the hardest to play on) why can't they win on slower, more predictable surfaces?
posted by HATER 187 at 02:13 PM on July 10, 2007
No surface is harder in itself. They're just different. You're bound to have more difficulty on one of them, and be more proficient on another, usually the one you grew up on as a player. The French Open has eluded Federer for a single reason: Nadal.
posted by qbert72 at 02:52 PM on July 10, 2007
On cable, is anyone showing old videos of the classics of Borg, Connors, McEnroe?(Followed by Lendl and Wildander.) Overall, bry66, I guess it depends on what we mean with lack of competition. There's a lack of competition (outside of Roland Garros) when you consider that Federer generally makes the rest of the tour into mincemeat. That is not the same as a lack of quality on the tour, which I hope bry66 isn't saying. Yes, it's easy to wish for other players to raise their game to Federer's level -- a challenge only answered by Nadal -- but that's a tough request.
posted by jackhererra at 07:24 PM on July 10, 2007
What impressed me was Federer's ability to reach back and pull something out whenever he was in trouble. Usually, it was a really strong serve that Nadal couldn't even see, let alone return.
posted by Howard_T at 09:46 PM on July 10, 2007
Congrats to Roger. Is there no time limit on how long Nadal can take to serve?