Finally he admitted to choking that chance away last summer. [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Finally he admitted to choking that chance away last summer.

Dirk
01-30-2004, 11:49 AM
Q. Do you get sort of special satisfaction from the way that you've handled all the new things that have happened to you in the last six months: winning Wimbledon, winning the Masters, getting to the Australian Open final, being No. 1? You seem to have handled them all so well. Does that give you kind of a special satisfaction, as well?

ROGER FEDERER: Yes. And I feel like I've totally learned out of the Montreal match against Andy where I missed my chance for No. 1. Today I was much more relaxed. Definitely I was nervous, too, in the end.

I don't know if I would have served it out any other way if I wouldn't have experienced what happened to me in Montreal, because I was basically shaking all over my body because I couldn't believe the chance I had.

So there I missed it. And it was - how do you say - it was the defeat that hurt me the most last year. And now to have made it, to have served it out, it's just really -- it's just really nice.

star
01-30-2004, 11:59 AM
Of course he choked it away.

No one can beat Roger except Roger. ;)

jtipson
01-30-2004, 12:02 PM
Yeah, he's hinted at that before in interviews with Swiss papers. He really has shown how much he's learnt from that experience. The last couple of months he looks to have had his head screwed on much tighter ;)

lsy
01-30-2004, 02:55 PM
Of course he choked it away.

No one can beat Roger except Roger. ;)

Seem like this type of statement just comes more and more recently and surprisingly it wasn't from his die hard fans. Rogi never said that, and so didn't most of his fans except probabaly 1 or 2 extremely confident ones. Good sign, he'd finally won over many others :p

star
01-30-2004, 02:59 PM
hmmmmm I think that I have read many, many posts, saying that Federer can beat any opponent unless he is off his game. Dirk is one of those, and he started this thread.

tangerine_dream
01-30-2004, 03:06 PM
Wow, Dirk is actually admitting that Roger is human and fallible.

I'm shocked. :eek:

lsy
01-30-2004, 03:14 PM
This thread tells what Roger felt in Montreal and how he blew away his chances to be no.1 there and how he had learnt from thereon. I don't see how it meant as "Nobody can beat Roger except himself"???

Go read his answer when he was asked how he felt about so many people think he can win all the slams.

Go also read many posts from his fans about how they're worry about his match vs Hewitt and David or ferrero. Or how we kind of "freak" out when we saw his draw in AO, we won't be if we think Rogi is unbeatable. Or perharps you never finish reading the sentences after people say he has the talent, they also say Rogi needs to be more consistent and try to win when he's not playing his best. I don't know about you but I read plenty of those. But of course you'd rather focus on the other part of it...

Anyway, my point made and I'm in the celebrating mood now to continue this discussion. So :wavey:

Andre'sNo1Fan
01-30-2004, 03:15 PM
What is the point of this thread. Federer is not the first player, and will not be the last, to lose his nerve when serving for the match. Crazy person starting a thread about this. Who really cares?

Deboogle!.
01-30-2004, 03:47 PM
I could give you an answer Andre'sNo1Fan but I'd rather not start a fight :)

star
01-30-2004, 04:42 PM
This thread tells what Roger felt in Montreal and how he blew away his chances to be no.1 there and how he had learnt from thereon. I don't see how it meant as "Nobody can beat Roger except himself"???

Go read his answer when he was asked how he felt about so many people think he can win all the slams.

Go also read many posts from his fans about how they're worry about his match vs Hewitt and David or ferrero. Or how we kind of "freak" out when we saw his draw in AO, we won't be if we think Rogi is unbeatable. Or perharps you never finish reading the sentences after people say he has the talent, they also say Rogi needs to be more consistent and try to win when he's not playing his best. I don't know about you but I read plenty of those. But of course you'd rather focus on the other part of it...

Anyway, my point made and I'm in the celebrating mood now to continue this discussion. So :wavey:

Hmmmmmm Re "never finish reading sentences:" My opinion is based on the ends of many sentences. These sentences go something like this: Roger will win this match if he plays his best. There is no player who can beat Roger if he is playing well.

You see it's those ends of the sentences that have caught my eye. So no need to worry about my finishing reading the sentences. :)

Havok
01-30-2004, 06:32 PM
im sorry but where did he say "i choked that match away in Montreal"? and i didn't see Roger shaking in that match:lol: i didn't see any. and how can you choke away a match if you didn't give it away by a bunch of errors when you had the lead:shrug: just dirk at it again

jtipson
01-30-2004, 07:03 PM
Maybe this thread ought to have been in the Fed Express forum...

For the record though, I don't know why folk don't believe Roger if he says he was shaking in the Montreal sf. And if he was, it must have affected his game. If that's not choking, I guess other people must have a different definition of the word.

Anyway, he didn't choke tonight in the AO sf. Maybe the number one ranking has come six months later than it should have done, but he's got it now, so let's forget Montreal. I'm sure Roger will.

Havok
01-30-2004, 07:44 PM
choking= having a big lead and then letting it go by ugly errors, trying to rush things. like the fed cup match Federer served for it at 5-3 in the 3rd, and lost the match. that's a choke. clijsters up 5-1 vs Serena at OZ 2003, losing the match, that's a choke. being nervous for the match in general isn't choking, it's just not being able to deal with the pressure

Dirk
01-30-2004, 08:16 PM
Um that is what happened. He was choking and made double faults and easy errors. He did choke and the moment affected him. I am not saying anything about if he plays his best he can't be beaten, although I do believe that except in the case of Saffy. One minute Roger was playing incredible and the next just terrible. This clears it up for all the Andy fans who said Roger didn't lose that match.

Havok
01-30-2004, 08:30 PM
he had a one break lead, NEVER served for the match. BOTH players weren't playing their best tennis in that final set. as you can say Roger choked away that match, i can say Roddick choked away that game were he was broken(i think he even had game points in that service game). we can throw around the same crap over and over again. you choke a match away when you had a HUGE lead, possibly served for it, and you give it away with really dumb errors. you don't choke a match away when you have one break in the last set of a best of 3 sets match, and then get taken to a tie-break and lose it:rolleyes:

faboozadoo15
01-30-2004, 08:37 PM
andy also played pretty well... stayed focused and never really wavered... but roger had enough chances to regret losing that match.

lalaland
01-30-2004, 09:01 PM
Everyone chokes, what's the big deal.

So what's the point of this thread?

Crazy_Fool
01-30-2004, 10:16 PM
Everyone chokes, what's the big deal.

So what's the point of this thread?
This has got to be one of the worst threads ever. I've no idea what this thread is supposed to be about. I think I might start a thread now about someone choking a match away.....erm who can I chose, there are so many....

Deboogle!.
01-30-2004, 10:28 PM
Naldo basically said it all. So Ferrero lost #1 when he lost in Paris.... did he choke it away too? I mean this logic can go on forever. Did Andy choke away #1 when he was broken at 4-4 in the 5th set of a Slam QF and then wasted 2 immediate chances to break back? No Andy fans have said that...

lol Crazy_Fool... exactly.

Chloe le Bopper
01-30-2004, 11:15 PM
Everyone chokes, what's the big deal.

So what's the point of this thread?
Maybe I should start one for every match that I think Ferrero has choked? Because it's like, SO relevant and all ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-30-2004, 11:16 PM
Naldo basically said it all. So Ferrero lost #1 when he lost in Paris.... did he choke it away too? I mean this logic can go on forever. Did Andy choke away #1 when he was broken at 4-4 in the 5th set of a Slam QF and then wasted 2 immediate chances to break back? No Andy fans have said that...

lol Crazy_Fool... exactly.
Yes, Ferrero choked. He choked in the USO finals too ;) ;)

Crazy_Fool
01-30-2004, 11:26 PM
Maybe I should start one for every match that I think Ferrero has choked? Because it's like, SO relevant and all
It is very, very relevant. Didnt u realise this is Roger Federer we are talking about. We cant start a thread about a normal player like Ferrero but we can about Roger 'only beats himself' Federer. Some of these Federer fans are sooo arrogant.

Deboogle!.
01-30-2004, 11:38 PM
It is very, very relevant. Didnt u realise this is Roger Federer we are talking about. We cant start a thread about a normal player like Ferrero but we can about Roger 'only beats himself' Federer. Some of these Federer fans are sooo arrogant.

:haha:

and lmao Becca.... yea totally.

Havok
01-31-2004, 12:31 AM
It is very, very relevant. Didnt u realise this is Roger Federer we are talking about. We cant start a thread about a normal player like Ferrero but we can about Roger 'only beats himself' Federer. Some of these Federer fans are sooo arrogant.
:lol:

lalaland
01-31-2004, 12:33 AM
We cant start a thread about a normal player like Ferrero but we can about Roger 'only beats himself' Federer.

Note to myself: potential new thread after Aussie Open.
Did Safin beat Federer or Federer beat himself? OR
Did Federer beat Safin or Safin beat himself?

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 12:34 AM
Note to myself: potential new thread after Aussie Open.
Did Safin beat Federer or Federer beat himself? OR
Did Federer beat Safin or Safin beat himself?

:haha:

lalaland
01-31-2004, 12:35 AM
Note to myself: potential new thread after Aussie Open.
Did Safin beat Federer or Federer beat himself? OR
Did Federer beat Safin or Safin beat himself?


Okay, not funny. I thought only headcase would beat himself and they both aren't headcase, not anymore?

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 12:49 AM
yes it was funny!!

Havok
01-31-2004, 12:52 AM
Note to myself: potential new thread after Aussie Open.
Did Safin beat Federer or Federer beat himself? OR
Did Federer beat Safin or Safin beat himself?
:lol:

J. Corwin
01-31-2004, 01:01 AM
It is very, very relevant. Didnt u realise this is Roger Federer we are talking about. We cant start a thread about a normal player like Ferrero but we can about Roger 'only beats himself' Federer. Some of these Federer fans are sooo arrogant.

lol ;)

J. Corwin
01-31-2004, 01:02 AM
This clears it up for all the Andy fans who said Roger didn't lose that match.

That's funny. I check ATP website and see a "L" in the Montreal SF for Roger.

Chloe le Bopper
01-31-2004, 01:22 AM
That's funny. I check ATP website and see a "L" in the Montreal SF for Roger.
hehe ;)

See... regardless of wether or not Roger "choked" the match - he still lost it. He lost it, because Andy won more sets. Andy did not win more sets by sitting in his changeover chair hoping that Roger would double fault.

Are we all clear? ;)

Leena
01-31-2004, 01:25 AM
Andy won more sets by standing near a line, and violent swinging his arm.

Geaux Roger.

J. Corwin
01-31-2004, 01:27 AM
Andy won more sets by standing near a line, and violent swinging his arm.

Geaux Roger.

I can also stand by a line and violently swing my arm. Would Roger still have lost to me?

Leena
01-31-2004, 01:29 AM
You're not a duck.

Chloe le Bopper
01-31-2004, 01:29 AM
Andy won more sets by standing near a line, and violent swinging his arm.

Geaux Roger.
A W is a W. Where the W comes from, is generally irrelevant, so long as the match was completed ;)

Chloe le Bopper
01-31-2004, 01:30 AM
You're not a duck.
Don't think he hasn't tried

Leena
01-31-2004, 01:31 AM
A W is a W. Where the W comes from, is generally irrelevant, so long as the match was completed ;)
Or, if you perform an L... but your opponent is unable to play the next round, due to injury.

Anyway, please insult Andy.

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 01:32 AM
Jace and Becca, you guys are too much:)

Chloe le Bopper
01-31-2004, 01:39 AM
Or, if you perform an L... but your opponent is unable to play the next round, due to injury.

Anyway, please insult Andy.
I'm not in the mood ;)

lsy
01-31-2004, 02:07 AM
Hmmmmmm Re "never finish reading sentences:" My opinion is based on the ends of many sentences. These sentences go something like this: Roger will win this match if he plays his best. There is no player who can beat Roger if he is playing well.

You see it's those ends of the sentences that have caught my eye. So no need to worry about my finishing reading the sentences. :)

Is is so wrong to believe that your favourite player can win IF he is playing HIS BEST??? I assume your favourite is Andy, you don't have the confidence in him that he will win vs his opponents if he plays his BEST??? I don't think Roger is unbeatable, but I do have the confidence in him that if he plays his BEST, he can do it. Did he not prove it (though it obviously take quite many years for him to realise that)? Did he not play flawless tennis in Wimbledon and have convincing win? I don't even want to talk about Houson since many of you believe your favourite players are not at their best form and I try to respect that. So did this confidence from his fans just drop from the sky out of nowhere by being unreasonably arrogant???

Or was the sentence even close to sth like this : "Roger is so so talented that even if he's not playing his BEST, he can beat anybody else who's playing their BEST"??? If it is, I will be the first to think it's ridiculous and utmost arrogant.

There's a difference in believing with confidence and thrash talking with arrogance and ignorance.

I for one will say that I want to believe that Roger can win vs Safin if he brings up his best in the coming final, not because I'm arrogant or disrespecting Safin (go read other posts of what I said about him) but only because I'm a fan of Roger and I like to think he can win. Nevertheless I know it'll be one hell of a match, not just because of the game but also how much they like and respect each other.

I had made my stand on this issue just for myself (not representing other Roger's fans). Of course if you still like to think otherwise, I'm not even going to try "forcing" my opinion on you furthermore :)

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 02:43 AM
lsy, there is a HUGE difference between thinking Roger can beat anyone if he is playing his best and that if he loses, it was because he WASN'T at his best. You're not saying the latter statement, but some of your fellow Roger fans definitely have.

J. Corwin
01-31-2004, 03:37 AM
You're not a duck.

So Roger lost to a duck. OK ;)

lsy
01-31-2004, 04:04 AM
Was that what people said about his losses in Montreal and Davis cup, because he wasn't playing well/his best or because he CHOKED and wasn't mentally strong enough???

I know it's frustrating when people don't give credit to your favourites wins. However if I were you, I will celebrate Andy's win in Montreal more on his mental aspects than his game that day. Do I mean it in an insulting way? Well, if you like to read it that way, I can't help. Rogi's fans of saying he blown away his chance in Montreal can be seen as a critic of his mental fragility too. Since when is choking away matches a compliment?

Everybody knows winning is not just about talent or skills, it has to be combined with determination, hardwork and even luck sometimes. Andy had done that last year with showcase of more consistency in many of those aspects, Roger despite having the game obviously lost out slightly mentally. Is it better for people to say your favourite has a better game or better mental, I don't know, apparently we like to have both, but if it clearly wasn't the case, I'm happy to accept it and hopefully he will improve instead of living in denial.

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 04:08 AM
lsy, all of that still doesn't change the fact that several Roger fans can't seem to accept that he might lose sometimes, even when he's playing well.

Leo
01-31-2004, 04:10 AM
Are we supposed to congratulate Roger on admitting this?

*pats Rog on the back*

Well done, man. :clap2:

Shy
01-31-2004, 04:10 AM
Some people think about him losing in Montreal more than himself probably.

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 04:13 AM
Shy I think you are probably right lol

lsy
01-31-2004, 04:27 AM
lsy, all of that still doesn't change the fact that several Roger fans can't seem to accept that he might lose sometimes, even when he's playing well.

Of course and that "several" Rogi's fans obviously had caused "several" others for getting upset or frustrated and derive the conclusion that all it meant was Roger is the king and can never lose while forgoing many other fans who never labelled him as that. Fair and cool ;)

lalaland
01-31-2004, 04:30 AM
lsy, all of that still doesn't change the fact that several Roger fans can't seem to accept that he might lose sometimes, even when he's playing well.


According to Federer himself, he didn't play well. In his Montreal interview, this is how it went.

Reporter: Did you feel it was bad about your play today or did you feel that Andy played that much better?

Roger Federer: We had a 7-6 in the third in the past so, you know, it's difficult to say, because his serve is so big and, you know, it's tough to say if you played well or not. It's not really in your hands. It's about his service game. It's got a lot to do with his game. I thought, you know, he played one of the better matches against me, but I feel like maybe this may have been the worst match of all that I played against him. Because every time I played him I always felt very good from the baseline. I thought I was really reading his serve well and today was maybe just not the case. I still was up a break in the third.

I'm no fan of both of them. I don't find it too arrogant of Federer to say if he plays better, he could have beaten Roddick. You have to have the belief that you can beat someone, otherwise, why would you bother to even play. When you lost to a guy who is mentally tougher than you, so what if you can hit every shot in the book. Federer knows it when he kept losing to Nalbandian or Hewitt, until now ;) .

And for those who thinks no one can beat Federer but Federer, only have to look at Safin. Safin did very well in beating himself in the past 2 years, his fans don't look too proud. Not saying that Federer will go Safin's path, but you just never know. Safin was seemingly unbeatable until whatever caused him to lost it. If Safin is becoming mentally strong from now on as I hope he is, I wouldn't mind him losing to anyone as long as he don't lose to himself, in fact, it is way more frustrating to see him lost a match beating himself.

Action Jackson
01-31-2004, 04:37 AM
Aren't there delusional and idiotic fans everywhere? These are the type if their favourite loses for example 6-1, 6-0, 6-0, they blame bad line calls, or they choked under pressure, the wind was too much and it's a still day or the other player was cheating. They are incapable of acknowledging their favourites are human and can be beaten.

Shy
01-31-2004, 04:37 AM
I think that if we look to Federer results in the last few months. It seem that he might finally starting to fight his mental demons. This week, he seem to be more fired up too.The same is for Safin. I think that Rogi lost against Andy had help him a lots too.

WyverN
01-31-2004, 12:23 PM
I know its hard to accept but when the best players play their best they almost certainly win.

Federer is one of those players where comments such as "if he plays his best he will win" are completely justified.

For example if Federer doesnt have make > 40 errors and < 60% first serves in tomorrow then I don't see Safin beating him no matter how he plays. Safin is capable of beating Federer at his best but not at the moment as Safin himself is not near his peak as he has admitted in interviews.

For example I have only seen Sampras beaten once in his career where he was playing his best.

WyverN
01-31-2004, 12:25 PM
On a totally unrelated matter if Roger wins tomorrows final then the only way he will lose his #1 ranking before Wimbledon is if

a) Roger begins losing just about every tournament before quarter finals
b) someone other then Ferrero dominates US hardcourt/clay season

Crazy_Fool
01-31-2004, 12:28 PM
I know its hard to accept but when the best players play their best they almost certainly win.
Really news to me. And what if 2 of the best players play their best,then what happens? Not that this has got anything to do with a pointless thread someone started.

WyverN
01-31-2004, 12:41 PM
Really news to me. And what if 2 of the best players play their best,then what happens?

the better player wins
it has happened in this tournament - Safin v Roddick played at their current respective bests imo

Crazy_Fool
01-31-2004, 12:53 PM
the better player wins
it has happened in this tournament - Safin v Roddick played at their current respective bests imo
Yeh but hardly convincing win was it. Hold on, you just said that Safin was nowhere near his peak in this tournament :confused:

WyverN
01-31-2004, 12:56 PM
Yeh but hardly convincing win was it. Hold on, you just said that Safin was nowhere near his peak in this tournament :confused:

I said current bests

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 02:48 PM
the better player wins
it has happened in this tournament - Safin v Roddick played at their current respective bests imo

But when a match hinges on one service break or a couple of points, how can you really say that one player was clearly playing better? I mean what about Andre? Was he playing at his best or not? This discussion is too esoteric to place absolutes on things.

Crazy_Fool
01-31-2004, 03:07 PM
But when a match hinges on one service break or a couple of points, how can you really say that one player was clearly playing better? I mean what about Andre? Was he playing at his best or not? This discussion is too esoteric to place absolutes on things.
Obviously Agassi/Roddick were not clearly worse than Safin. Both games could have gone either way. If Safin was clearly better, why did he take so damn long to win each match?

Deboogle!.
01-31-2004, 03:24 PM
Obviously Agassi/Roddick were not clearly worse than Safin. Both games could have gone either way. If Safin was clearly better, why did he take so damn long to win each match?

Yea exactly.... that's my point exactly just restated better :)

Crazy_Fool
01-31-2004, 03:38 PM
Yea exactly.... that's my point exactly just restated better :)
:yeah:

WyverN
01-31-2004, 10:17 PM
But when a match hinges on one service break or a couple of points, how can you really say that one player was clearly playing better? I mean what about Andre? Was he playing at his best or not? This discussion is too esoteric to place absolutes on things.

in my opinion
Roddick was better in 1st and 5th sets.

Safin was better in 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Certainly luck plays a part and it did come down to a few points but in the end I think the better player on the night won.

WyverN
01-31-2004, 10:18 PM
Obviously Agassi/Roddick were not clearly worse than Safin. Both games could have gone either way. If Safin was clearly better, why did he take so damn long to win each match?

who said clearly better?

Overall Safin outplayed Roddick in 3 sets (2nd, 3rd, 4th), Roddick outplayed Safin in 2.

The difference was marginal.

Havok
01-31-2004, 11:04 PM
On a totally unrelated matter if Roger wins tomorrows final then the only way he will lose his #1 ranking before Wimbledon is if

a) Roger begins losing just about every tournament before quarter finals
b) someone other then Ferrero dominates US hardcourt/clay season
that's because Federer was KING of the mickey mouse tournaments in 2003, so he won't have so much trouble defending his 5 smaller titles. and Roger CAN still lose his #1 ranking before Wimbledon. funny how you didn't mention Roddick, who isn't so far behind. and he has the least amount of points all the way up to Wimbledon when comparing the three (Roddick, Federer, Ferrero)

Tennis Fool
01-31-2004, 11:07 PM
Why is everyone upset with Dirk? Am I missing something :confused: He just posted what Federer basically said, that he got too nervous against Andy in Montreal, knowing the #1 rank was on the line.

With that in consideration, and knowing the pounding that Andy took from him at Wimbledon, you would expect Federer to win in Montreal, and when he doesn't you question why?

Roland
01-31-2004, 11:39 PM
that's because Federer was KING of the mickey mouse tournaments in 2003, so he won't have so much trouble defending his 5 smaller titles. and Roger CAN still lose his #1 ranking before Wimbledon. funny how you didn't mention Roddick, who isn't so far behind. and he has the least amount of points all the way up to Wimbledon when comparing the three (Roddick, Federer, Ferrero)

If Roger wins, then he will have almost a 1000 point lead in the entry system (that's equal to a grand slam victory ). Roddick isn't that close.

They have equal points in the two biggest places for roddick to gain ( Miami and IW), which means that, unless Roger bombs out of both tournments, Roddick would most likely have to win both masters series events to surpass Federer.

Havok
02-01-2004, 12:25 AM
that's IF Roger wins. and even if Roger wins, yes he'll have a 1000 point lead, as you have calculated youself. they have the same points to defend at IW and Miami, but Andy can still add in his best 5 optional tournaments, while Federer can't really add anything, but lose lots of points there(highly doubt that he'll lose a lot from the optional 5)

WyverN
02-01-2004, 12:40 AM
that's because Federer was KING of the mickey mouse tournaments


Particularly Wimbledon


and Roger CAN still lose his #1 ranking before Wimbledon. funny how you didn't mention Roddick, who isn't so far behind.


Please give me a scenario of hypothetical results of Roger and Roddick that will lead to Federer losing his #1 ranking before Wimbledon if Federer wins AO otherwise why argue if you dont know what your talking about?

WyverN
02-01-2004, 12:44 AM
funny how you didn't mention Roddick, who isn't so far behind.


b) someone other then Ferrero dominates US hardcourt/clay season



Can't read or just paranoid about Roddick?

Tennis Fool
02-01-2004, 12:48 AM
that's because Federer was KING of the mickey mouse tournaments in 2003

No that was RODDICK until he hooked up with Gilbert. Don't worry, tho. He'll go back to that this year ;)

Roland
02-01-2004, 01:05 AM
that's IF Roger wins. and even if Roger wins, yes he'll have a 1000 point lead, as you have calculated youself. they have the same points to defend at IW and Miami, but Andy can still add in his best 5 optional tournaments, while Federer can't really add anything, but lose lots of points there(highly doubt that he'll lose a lot from the optional 5)

Roddick can't add enough in optional to make an impact, even if he wins Dubai (the biggest optional) he would only add 175 entry points and would add even less if he WON some of the other optionals.

Deboogle!.
02-01-2004, 01:30 AM
Roddick can't add enough in optional to make an impact, even if he wins Dubai (the biggest optional) he would only add 175 entry points and would add even less if he WON some of the other optionals.

He doesn't play Dubai anyway, he stays in the US all the way from now until Houston.

But it doesn't matter... whatever happens happens. Andy is becoming a better and better player and that's all that matters to me. Anything can happen in the rankings!

Chloe le Bopper
02-01-2004, 01:35 AM
NOw now... Roger was KING of the MIckey Mouse events. But winning a slam - or two - and Houston on top of that are what put him on top ;)