Some observations...
- Everybody's looking at 2007 Wimbledon as if Roger vs. Andy in the finals is a gimme, but I think it's far from that. Grass is definitely Roger's best surface, but it's also a surface where there's not only some of the other top guys who also match up well with him on grass (e. g., Ancic), but there's also all kinds of scary lurkers out there, like Ivo Karlovic. If Roger makes it through the first week at any major, especially Wimbledon, he's tough to head off....but he does have to make it through the first week.
- I do think that Andy's improved, but I also think, as others have noted, that his grass court game doesn't match up well against Roger's strength. Still, I think Andy's a pretty good bet (if they're not seeded to meet earlier than the finals) to make the finals against Federer. If that happens...I dunno, Andy's about due, is all I can say. It could happen, but I'm not betting the ranch it will.
- Neither Roger nor Andy is old, exactly, but they're not spring chickens, either, and they've been playing the ATP circuit, with all the heavy pressure that entails, for about 8 years apiece. At some point, somebody's going to go by both of them. Roger is not invincable...ask Rafa, or
Canas...and once somebody beats Roger, it usually happens again.
It was hard to believe anybody was ever going to beat Sampras at Wimbledon, until he got a little older, and somebody (named Federer) did. I dunno know the next Wimbledon champion is, but I guarantee you it's somebody who believes he can be a champion...and the good ones always believe starting early. So if not this year, I think within the next two or three, you're going to see some new kid who goes "Huh...everybody knows how to play on hardcourt, or clay, or both, but there aren't that many people, Roger excepted, who are great grass court players. Guess I'll become one..."
:lol:
