Jump to content

Roger does it again...


Recommended Posts

Too good for galant Gonzo

By Cornell van der Heyden

FOXSPORTS.com.au

January 28, 2007 FERNANDO Gonzalez threw everything he could at Roger Federer in the Australian Open final, but the world No.1 was simply too good ... again.

 

Roger Federer captured his 10th grand slam singles title without dropping a set at the Australian Open, beating Fernando Gonzalez of Chile 7-6 (2) 6-4 6-4 in Sunday's championship match.

 

Federer improved his winning streak to a career-best 36 matches and advanced through a Major without dropping a set for the first time.

 

It was the first time since Bjorn Borg won the 1980 French Open title that a champion had gone through a Major without dropping a set, and the first time at the Australian Open since Ken Rosewall in 1971.

 

Federer became the first man in the Open era to twice win three straight Majors and has won six of the past seven grand slam titles. His only loss was in the French Open final to Rafael Nadal last year.

 

By reaching the final, Federer tied Jack Crawford's record of playing in seven consecutive finals at the Majors, set in 1934.

 

"It is just wonderful. I have had a great run here again this year," Federer said.

 

"I am very proud to be holding this trophy again."

 

Gonzalez, seeded No.10 and into his first grand slam final, kept Federer under pressure with his big forehand, but could not quite match the all-court game of the player who has been ranked No.1 for 156 consecutive weeks.

 

He broke Federer in the ninth game, the first breakpoint chance of the match, and had two set points in the next game but failed to convert.

 

Federer broke back to level at 5-5 and then had four set points in the next game before Gonzalez held in a game that went to deuce seven times and forced a tiebreak.

 

Federer dominated the tie-break, jumping out to a 5-0 lead after winning a challenge against an incorrect baseline call to have the first point replayed.

 

Gonzalez, the Olympic doubles champion and singles bronze medal winner, had conceded only two points on serve in the second set until Federer broke for a 4-3.

 

Federer fired an ace to close the second set and broke Gonzalez in the seventh game of the third set. He earned triple championship point with a forehand winner and closed it with a backhand down the line.

 

He fell to his back, rolled over and then got up, hit a ball into the stands and took a bow. He held both arms high before throwing his wristband into crowd.

 

For the match, Federer lost only 17 points in 16 service games plus the tiebreak, and dropped only two points on serve in the last set.

 

He finished with 45 winners and only 19 unforced errors - just four in the final set.

 

Gonzalez, who had only three unforced errors against Tommy Haas in the semi-finals, had 28 against Federer to go with 31 winners.

 

The first set lasted 65 minutes, two minutes longer than Serena Williams needed to win the women's final 6-1 6-2 over Maria Sharapova on Saturday afternoon. She stayed in Melbourne and was at Rod Laver Arena watching the men's final.

 

Another grand slam for the Swiss freak. That record can't be far off now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, him not winning the French Open doesn't mean anything...he'll get a title there, without a doubt. Pete never got it, and many consider him the greatest t-ball player ever.

 

I already consider Federer that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

So I just got done watching what was in my mind, one of the greatest matches ever played. The Federer/Nadal match up was unlike anything I've ever watched before in the world of tennis. Even though Federer won, I'd just like to point out that Raphael Nadal won the exact number of games Federer did...thats how close this match was, but Federer; as he always does turned it on when he needed to and pulled through in the end. The only time Nadal didn't win 6 games in a set was in the deciding 5th set. This makes FIVE in a row at Wimbeldon for Roger Federer, this guy is ridiculous. Then again, so is Nadal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was about Roger Clemens pitching one-run ball over eight innings!

 

BTW, I don't like Roger Federer. Not being an avid fan of the pro sport, just casual, he doesn't have the charm I like in my upper-echelon player. The femmes don't need charm, it's just an added bonus, they got the outfits!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

Another year, another amazing Wimbledon Final.

 

For the first time in 6 years however it is Raphael Nadal and not Roger Federer that will be celebrating tonight. Basically I echo my comments from last year, one of the greatest matches ever. I was thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the match, it was just so much fun to watch. I've developed a liking for Federer as time has gone on, you can't help but respect both of these guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This match was very intense, and I'm just counting the last 10 games or so after they came back from their final rain delay. You just knew Federer would come out firing aces, which he did. Nadal responded like he had to to become the champion. High drama and fantastic tennis. Couldn't ask for more. Now let's hope Nadal doesn't monopolize the sport for half a decade like Federer did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An amazing match... epic stuff...

 

I don't take sides in tennis because (unless the line judges/officials are having a bad day or one of the players is injured) the best player always wins. I like Federer and his getting a sixth consecutive win at Wimbledon would have been a colossal achievement, but Nadal was just better.

 

I'm hopeless at tennis, so I'm always in awe of these guys; to me, the ability to play at that intensity for 4-5 hours seems almost superhuman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously. I don't remember Samprass and Agassi being half that good. Some of those shots Nadal pulled out of his ass going backwards eight feet behind the baseline and hitting the chalk were amazing. And he did it like a dozen times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Well, Roger Federer just put a cap on what was is considered a 'disappointing' year by winning his FIFTH consecutive U.S. Open in straight sets.

 

The man battled mononucleosis for the entire first half of the season, made the semi-finals in the Aussie Open, made the finals in the French Open, lost Wimbeldon in the most epic tennis match ever played, and dropped I think one or two sets en route to his 5th US Open and 13th career Grand Slam title. What a down year!

 

Next year Federer will be back and with a vengence. He'll show Nadal whats up :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

This thread generally gets a bump around Wimbeldon, or one of the other Slams.

 

Today Roger Federer triumphed in the major that had thus far eluded him in his illustrious career; the French Open. He beat Robin Soderling in straight sets. Congrats to Federer on tying Pete Sampras career record of 14 Grand Slams, and completing the career Grand Slam for himself. :thumbsup: No go win Wimbeldon!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad Nadal didn't get to the Finals, because another Federer v Nadal matchup would have probably been epic here. I gotta say I used to be a huge tennis fan but for me there hasn't been a flamboyant personality to hold my interest consistently. While Federer is a tennis god, I'm just not a fan. I think Nadal holds more potential as a superstar despite Federer having an unbelievable career record.

 

Also, it's too bad there isn't an American capable of dominating, or at least challenging. My boy from Austin, Andy Roddick, just can't display the consistency needed to win a Grand Slam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another grand slam for the Swiss freak. That record can't be far off now.

 

But the '09 French Open men's final will always be the "what if" or asterisk-marked final, because Federer did not face Nadal.

 

He's tied Sampras, but he's no longer seen as the clear favorite at Wimbledon (even as it is--arguably--his best surface slam), where a win there would be his greatest chance to finally pass Sampras.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another grand slam for the Swiss freak. That record can't be far off now.

 

But the '09 French Open men's final will always be the "what if" or asterisk-marked final, because Federer did not face Nadal.

 

He's tied Sampras, but he's no longer seen as the clear favorite at Wimbledon (even as it is--arguably--his best surface slam), where a win there would be his greatest chance to finally pass Sampras.

 

I disagree. A win is a win, is a win. Years from now, no one will care who Federer did or didn't face in this Final. Federer didn't face Nadal because Nadal lost. It was not his week.

 

As for the second part, I like Fed to win one of, if not both of the remaining two Slams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His game has degenerated in the past year. He played a lot of "bad" matches on the way to this final. A healthy Nadal would have blown him off the court like he was last year I think.

 

It's fair to say that he's never beaten Nadal at the French Open. That is a blemish on his career (maybe the only one). But that doesn't mean the win itself gets an asterisk. No one will put an asterisk on the Lakers if they win a championship without facing the Cavaliers. Sometimes the best person or team doesn't get to the finals of a tournament. That's they way the event is structured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this made me very happy. I was actually glad my daughter woke me up at 6:00am on a Sunday, since I got to watch the entire match. I think he's probably become my second all-time favourite men's player and so I thought it was pretty cool/fitting that Andre (my #1 favourite) was the one to present him the trophy. I do think it's ironic that he won this historic title after not playing his best for much of the tournament, but that just tells you that a sub-par Roger is still better than most players on the planet.

 

Would he have beaten Nadal? It's speculative and, more importantly, irrelevent. Nadal didn't play well enough to reach the final, Roger did. That's the way it works. Besides, he's now done what only five other men have ever done (career Grand Slam) and noone in the history of the game has won more Grand Slam titles than he has. He's not exactly a fluke!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy this stuff about asterisking this win because he didn't face Nadal, Nadal lost. Thats his problem not Federer's. Oh well Nadal was injured and would have beaten Soderling and Federer to win the French Open if he was healthy. Federer wasn't given any sort of pass last year when he had mononucleosis to start the year, which has a long lasting impact for those of you who don't know. So why should Nadal get different treatment? Don't buy it.

 

Like I said, I'm still favoring Federer in Wimbledon AND the US Open. The only place Nadal ever dominated Federer was Roland Garros. Federer had previously won 5 in a row at Wimbledon, lest we forget, before losing in the 5th set 'tie break' last year. Fed is 5 time defending champion at US Open, he didn't face Nadal in the Final last year, does that one get an asterisk too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I"m watching as well... of course.

 

I'm totally torn though, as I've stated Roddick has been my favorite player but I've come to like Federer just as much, if not more. I just want to see some good tennis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...