Comments on: 2010 Australian Open Review: For Roger Federer – Can 17 Be Far Behind?

By: nadal fan

nadal fan — Sun, 16 May 2010 13:22:06 +0000

great perspective. I will be putting a bet on the fed express to beat raphael nadal later today at ATP Madrid.

By: JA_Allen

JA_Allen — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:48:51 +0000

That is what the media does – swing with the prevailing wind and promote controversy! It is all part of the game. It is never logical – as you point out! I think Federer was being forthright – but I also think it was gamesmanship – Roger is enjoying the game again – all its ins and outs – in my opinion – and yes, the commentators were hilarious during the two weeks!! Sometimes I just have to mute them!! Thanks so much for your great comments – a pleasure!

By: mich

mich — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:29:42 +0000

in sports in general, and in tennis in particular, the margin between winning and losing is often very slim. federer could have lost against davy, and he could have lost against andreev. if he had, everyone would be talking about the end of his career now, instead of praising him for his brilliant perfomance. tactically, he played an almost flawless game against murray, and i've rarely seen his backhand in a better shape. i did not particularly like his serve and his volley during the AO2010. i think he's got a good chance to keep winning grand slams, but it's not going to get any easier, there's now like 6 players than can challenge him on a normal day. i still give roger and rafa a slight edge over other players when it comes to psychological strength and game prowess, and i hope to see their rivalry renewed.

I really don't like people swinging from one extreme to the other, and already some writers are speculating for federer to win every GS this year. ridiculous. two weeks ago the same writers gave him no chance of winning the AO because of his performance against andreev.

btw, pretty good article. i don't agree with the statement that federer tried to heap more pressure upon murray. there was no gauntlet. he's just outspoken and honest, and if you look at what he's saying he's pretty much correct with everything. also, there was nothing murray did not know already. federer has a lot of respect for murray and he stated that repeatedly. the enemity is mostly spawned by boulevard type media – as they have tried (but not really succeeded) with rafa and roger as well.

being swiss, i have the possibility to follow his interviews in his native language as well, and he's stating almost the same things (which would not be necessary if he just did it in order to raise pressure for murray) – and they just sound like facts from someone that knows the game and has been around in a lot of these important matches.

By: JA_Allen

JA_Allen — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:18:25 +0000

Yes it is best that Rafa come back strong – it gives balance to the field but Rafa has his work cut out for him…he is, however, only 22 or 23 – many years to recoup and come back! Maybe surgery even to help those creaky knees…

Onto the U.S. hardcourts – Indian Wells and Miami!

By: JA_Allen

JA_Allen — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 12:14:30 +0000

I think the way Roger went through this tournament speaks volumes. He really is far from finished. I believe he will capture another crown – maybe even the French again if Rafa does not make it all the way back – but certainly Wimbledon is within his grasp as is the U.S. Open – I am holding out for 20!! Thanks for commenting here!!

By: marianne

marianne — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:44:11 +0000

I don't see *too* much difference in our views of how the final went. I think Andy did intend to come out aggressive but wasn't expecting Roger to play such an accurate, powerful and, most of all, patient game.
Of course if you can't make any headway, you fall back on what has succeeded in the past rather than stick with your game plan. He played into Roger's hands.
I have to say, though, that Roger played some of the best tennis he's produced in years…I doubt, even if Andy had got the third set, that he'd have won the match unless Roger lost confidence. And that simply wasn't going to happen yesterday.
I fear for Rafa's knees, as Leroy does. I'm not struggling to see him make a constant assault on all the Slams, which will leave the door open for the new guys to break in.
We'll know more in a month – it does at least look a different problem from the tendinitis. Fingers crossed. He brings a certain something to tennis that *none* of the others has!

By: Leroy

Leroy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:41:46 +0000

Great post-tournament recap!!

To answer the question posed in the headline: NO, 17 cannot be too far behind. Neither can 18-22, for that matter. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that Roger can win 2 more Slams this year, and if someone does him the favor of taking out Rafa, he could actually get that elusive calendar Grand Slam.

I don't EXPECT that, with all of the big guns who do so well on hard courts – but he DID just win Oz, didn't he??

Rafa, I think, is toast. Creaky knees and a tough playing style are combining to limit his future upside. He might actually do well to pull a Clijsters/Henin and get away from tennis entirely for a year or more. It might actually extend his career.

Fantastic to have you saddle, my friend!

By: JA_Allen

JA_Allen — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:50:08 +0000

They are far from finished – Roger, as he suggested to Andy and the media, knows how to win these big tournaments! He is primo shape and still loves to play. Rafa, assuming the knees hold out – will be back during the clay season, maybe he will survive on grass. I think hard courts are just too much for his knees – but Rafa is only 22 and he also knows what it takes to win – he takes it to Federer more than any other player on the big stages…it is definitely a great time in tennis for both the men and the women!!

By: celestialgirl

celestialgirl — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 01:32:39 +0000

Very interesting! You saw the men's final the way I did (I posted a similar article here earlier today). Though Marianne seemed to see it more of a match of domination by Roger,where Andy never could get his footing, I saw it more as Andy coming out, as he had against Nadal, guns blazing, because that tactic is obvious against Nadal, while I think Andy thinks he can hang with, and out tactic Roger to his peril.

One question for you. Andre Agassi, then Pete Sampras, and now a whole host of folks have announced that the era of Roger and Rafa is coming to a close.

I don't see it that way. I still see Roger and Rafa as the major Slam winners for some time to come, with occasional give-aways to the likes of Delpo, Cilic, and even Murray. let's say Rafa wins the French. I would bet that either Roger or Rafa would win Wimbledon. On hard courts, I see Delpo, Murray, Cilic, Tsonga, Djokovic, a whole host of contenders.

The main reason I don't think the era of Roger nor Rafa is over is that both of those men know how to manage a tournament, they know how to face the big points and the big moments. All the younger guys have big game, no doubt about it. But they have problems with managing to stay fresh through 7 games in the best of five format. Cilic had too many 5-setters, likewise Tsonga couldn't come back after finishing off Djokovic.

Do you see it that way?

It's an incredible time for men's (and ladies now that the Belgians are back) tennis. I certainly think that the top ten players are all Slam contenders on paper.