[Ace Tracker]

Nice to see you folks and the board running again...

The second set is now over and Philippoussis's initial intensity apparently gone... The first set saw some high quality tennis and several brilliant points. Mark came out on fire, and was serving really well, playing an aggressive net game to prohibit Federer of a single break point. Federer was his usual eficiency, winning most of the few rallies from the baseline and imposing his serve and groundstroke skills which are less powerful but flashier and more varied... It was just so deserving that this brilliant struggle had to be decided by a tie-breaker, and Mark's double-fault on a crucial point revealed to be the turning point of the match so far...

After losing the first set, Mark completely deflated himself and plaed the second set with fear... His confidence was shaken and his serve not as good.. Federer started reading and returning Philippoussis's serve with more and more ease, and it was just fitting that, deprived of his major weapon, Mark was easily broken and allowed Federer's command on a cruise control style... Towards the end of the set, Mark's dispirited play took its toll on Federer, and the quality level of the match declined considerably...

Hre hopeing the quality of the match will pick up again for the third set...

 

[jmp]

:wavey: Hi, Ace Tracker!

I had just started getting into this board when it went down. I'm so glad it's back! :bounce:

Your write up of your first impressions of this match was very comprehensive. I won't be so eloquent. But, here's my take:

*I anticipated this match more than any other major final since Pat/Goran 2001. I was rooting for Mark and eventhough he lost in straight sets, I was not disappointed.

*Mark played a 20th Century game. I've heard commentators say that Roger is a poor man's Sampras. I disagree. Mark's game reminds me more of Pete than Roger's. His game is to serve 2nd serves at full pace. That's Pete. That's high risk. It was one of the factors that cost Mark the first set. When he served a 70 mph second serve, he double faulted. So, I'm glad he stuck with his A serve risk and all. He also lumbers around the court ala Pete. You think they're spent, then they spring into action. The difference is that Pete could count on aces and he played the big points without flinching. Mark had a high percentage of first serves in, but, his aces went away. He had tiny chances against Federer during the second and third sets and couldn't capitalize on them. Having written all that, I think he would have increased his chances of breaking and winning if he had charged the net more often and stayed in Roger's face. I know he got passed when he did that a few times. But, I thought I saw him hesitate in his approach and I think constantly charging might have made an impression on Roger.

*Roger has the game of the new millenium. Booming serves are the norm today, not the exception. So, he neutralized one of Mark's greatest weapons. Secondly, that flick of the wrist back hand cross court is like a scapel. I don't know if I've ever seen anything like it as a player's go-to, "I can count on this" shot. I've seen it many times as a spectacular get, though. Lastly, Roger kept his head as a front runner, when he had a few loose shots, and on the big points.

*Overall, these were both "good" guys with great stories. I am so happy for both of their accomplishments. I got emotional. I think Mark needed a specific strategy to combat Roger and he didn't have one. He went with his A game and nothing else. I'm still appreciative of his play today and I hope he studies tapes of the "new ball" so he can come back and blow them off of the court.