I write this post as a Federer fan. As a lot of us seem to be caught up in the latest whoo-haa about the AO Final and R. Fed's "failed" 1st attempt to match Sampras.
Lets rewind the tape a bit, to Wimbledon 2007. Until then I had never seen Federer stretched to 5 sets in a final, and he managed to win in 5 sets, against Nadal, 6-2 in the fifth, to tie Borg's record and take his 5th Wimbledon crown. A match that could most certainly have gone either way, but Fed picked it up enough when it mattered, made BIG serves after being 15-40 down TWICE in the 5th set, had he not made those clutch points he might well have lost...and instead of Slam number 11, he would have been stuck on 10.
Fast forward on to New York, to the US Open, where "Darth" Federer, fresh off his Wimbledon triumph and seemingly at the peak of his powers, faced rising star Novak Djokovic, the "pretender" to his throne on Hardcourts (or so it seemed at the time). Federer faced down 7-set points in the first two sets, could well have been TRAILING 2 sets instead of LEADING Djokovic 2-0, and went on to win his 4th USO and Grand Slam No 12 without dropping a set to Djokovic.
Then after a disappointing (by his lofty standards) year in 2008, due to various factors, maybe some factors he had no control over (i.e. sickness) and a heart-breaker in the Wimbledon final losing 9-7 in the 5th to Nadal in near darkness, he gets through a VERY tight and iffy match against Igor Andreev in 5 sets in New York, and goes on to win the title, his 5th US Open and Grand Slam No. 13.
And here we stand, a lot of us, ranting about how "time is ticking" for good old Rog, his reign is on the wane, his era is coming to an end, yadda yadda fishpaste. Some of the Federer so-called "Fans" are the worst type of ship-jumpers there are, who fly into the night at the 1st sign of their man losing...
Well here it is as I see it: Those two finals: Wimbledon 2007 (d. Nadal) and US Open 2007 (d. Djokovic) could well have gone either way. The US Open 2008 could just as easily not had Roger's name on the cup, had a few points against Andreev gone the wrong way... just as a few points went the wrong way in this (AO 2009) final.
I think taking these into consideration (without the "short-term" memory syndrome that tends to afflict a lof of "Fans" in the Tennis world and on these forums), any person who knows the nature of sport, and tennis especially, as a game where fortunes can turn in a match very quickly, will remember that these THREE Grand Slams could well have not ended up in Roger Federer's pocket. Had the important points gone against Roger, we could have had Nadal in Wimbledon 2007, Djokovic in US Open 2007, and for all we know, Djokovic or Murray as US Open 2008.
Now, as a Federer fan, I am compelled to take a step back and ask myself, taking into account these THREE grand Slams where Roger could have perhaps lost, but managed to win... Is it really so bad that the last TWO where he could have won, he ended up losing? Because if he did lose them or even one or two of them, he would not be on 13 Grand Slams...
Perspective is a great thing to have, and it just seems like a lot of people could do with some of it right now. If you can't recall these matches (v Nadal Wimby 2007) (v Djokovic USO 2007) (v Andreev USO 2008) go back and watch them for yourself (I did). Then ask yourself if it is that bad that Roger is "stuck" on 13 Slams right now after winning those three matches which led to three Grand Slam titles to make the 13 that he is currently on.
As a follower of sport and someone who has played to a high competitive level myself (in a different sport), I am aware that expecting things to go your way EVERY SINGLE TIME is impossible, it just will never happen. Maybe this AO 2009 and Wimbledon 2008 was fate's answer to Roger squeaking through to get those three Grand Slams that could so easily have slipped through his fingers and left him a heck of a lot further than ONE Slam away from Mr. Sampras.
Lets rewind the tape a bit, to Wimbledon 2007. Until then I had never seen Federer stretched to 5 sets in a final, and he managed to win in 5 sets, against Nadal, 6-2 in the fifth, to tie Borg's record and take his 5th Wimbledon crown. A match that could most certainly have gone either way, but Fed picked it up enough when it mattered, made BIG serves after being 15-40 down TWICE in the 5th set, had he not made those clutch points he might well have lost...and instead of Slam number 11, he would have been stuck on 10.
Fast forward on to New York, to the US Open, where "Darth" Federer, fresh off his Wimbledon triumph and seemingly at the peak of his powers, faced rising star Novak Djokovic, the "pretender" to his throne on Hardcourts (or so it seemed at the time). Federer faced down 7-set points in the first two sets, could well have been TRAILING 2 sets instead of LEADING Djokovic 2-0, and went on to win his 4th USO and Grand Slam No 12 without dropping a set to Djokovic.
Then after a disappointing (by his lofty standards) year in 2008, due to various factors, maybe some factors he had no control over (i.e. sickness) and a heart-breaker in the Wimbledon final losing 9-7 in the 5th to Nadal in near darkness, he gets through a VERY tight and iffy match against Igor Andreev in 5 sets in New York, and goes on to win the title, his 5th US Open and Grand Slam No. 13.
And here we stand, a lot of us, ranting about how "time is ticking" for good old Rog, his reign is on the wane, his era is coming to an end, yadda yadda fishpaste. Some of the Federer so-called "Fans" are the worst type of ship-jumpers there are, who fly into the night at the 1st sign of their man losing...
Well here it is as I see it: Those two finals: Wimbledon 2007 (d. Nadal) and US Open 2007 (d. Djokovic) could well have gone either way. The US Open 2008 could just as easily not had Roger's name on the cup, had a few points against Andreev gone the wrong way... just as a few points went the wrong way in this (AO 2009) final.
I think taking these into consideration (without the "short-term" memory syndrome that tends to afflict a lof of "Fans" in the Tennis world and on these forums), any person who knows the nature of sport, and tennis especially, as a game where fortunes can turn in a match very quickly, will remember that these THREE Grand Slams could well have not ended up in Roger Federer's pocket. Had the important points gone against Roger, we could have had Nadal in Wimbledon 2007, Djokovic in US Open 2007, and for all we know, Djokovic or Murray as US Open 2008.
Now, as a Federer fan, I am compelled to take a step back and ask myself, taking into account these THREE grand Slams where Roger could have perhaps lost, but managed to win... Is it really so bad that the last TWO where he could have won, he ended up losing? Because if he did lose them or even one or two of them, he would not be on 13 Grand Slams...
Perspective is a great thing to have, and it just seems like a lot of people could do with some of it right now. If you can't recall these matches (v Nadal Wimby 2007) (v Djokovic USO 2007) (v Andreev USO 2008) go back and watch them for yourself (I did). Then ask yourself if it is that bad that Roger is "stuck" on 13 Slams right now after winning those three matches which led to three Grand Slam titles to make the 13 that he is currently on.
As a follower of sport and someone who has played to a high competitive level myself (in a different sport), I am aware that expecting things to go your way EVERY SINGLE TIME is impossible, it just will never happen. Maybe this AO 2009 and Wimbledon 2008 was fate's answer to Roger squeaking through to get those three Grand Slams that could so easily have slipped through his fingers and left him a heck of a lot further than ONE Slam away from Mr. Sampras.
Gonzo was on fire throughout the tournament and crushing everyone. He played well in the finals too, but TMF was too good for him.
