Here's the funny thing. In some way its good for roger's legacy to lose these types of matches. People will appreciate the greatness of federer later on, and understand the quality of competition he is facing. I just hope "fat dave" actually builds on this because his talent is amazing. He is the most talented and solid off both sides since agassi, and this is not me bandwagoning. He has always had it but it was a question of if he could put it together for a whole season let alone a whole career.
It shows how much a player needs to beat roger. Its no secret that it required bandy to play at the top of his game and have full confidence to beat federer today. Safin needed arguable the best match of his career to beat roger at the AO, and it takes a
to beat federer on clay. Beating federer just once has been such a huge challenge, and while it can be done that is not the important questions. There are a select few players who have the ability to beat roger and on their best day, they could. But if they played 10 matches across all surfaces, federer wins the majority of those matches - his standard is too high.[/QUOTE]
Not only true, but also very well said. I do hope the quality of Roer's competition is eventually appreciated. I'm sick of hearing people say that he isn't that
good because the field is weak. I've been to enough tournaments to see how good the guys are and how much deeper the men's field is (I recall reading that someone who knows a lot more about the game than I do -- that Laver chap -- said this), but Roger is just that much better. I'm also sick of people saying that Roger isn't as great as Sampras, Agassi, Connors, McEnroe, etc., because he hasn't had a real rival or been consistently challenged by any player except by the "psycho OCD moonballer"
and only on clay.
One last match showing how hard it is to beat Roger ... Murray in '06 at Cincy. I was there and wonder what the result would have been had ESPN not given Roger a 1:00 p.m. day match after a late night match so they could show Roddick against a qualifier during prime time. Moron Carillo said Roger tanked the match on purpose. Well, if he was taking it, why did he break back five times? He had no time to adjust to the surface, no time for a full practice, and no legs. He had not serve but still managed to keep breaking Murray and hang in as long as he could. Even though it put a big damper on Cincy, who cares ... he went on to win the Open.
Thanks for your post.