I disagree. Nobody knows what kind of emotions people go through when winning something huge like the US Open, if it is your first or hundreth time. Furthermore, he became the first person in tennis history to Wimbeldon and US Open back-to-back three years in a row. That would make me just as, if not more, emotional. I don't believe he was being melodramatic at all. He belongs with the greats of the game now and may even surpass them. He shows that he truly respects the game of tennis and eventhough he has 9 Grand Slams to his name, he is still humble in his victories and doesn't take anything for granted. As for Tiger, i'll just say that different people react in different ways. For example, look at Schumi and how he reacts after 90 Grand Prix victories.
That is correct. Why would he overact?
The truth of the matter is, Federer keeps his emotions in check, and once the last point is over, it all comes out.
What contributes to this emotion is the fact that he was struggling against Roddick. Four of his first five slam finals were won in straight sets, but the last five finals went to four sets. Not exactly on the brink of defeat, but definitely struggling -- Baghdatis, Nadal and now Roddick, they were all tough.
Roddick had him doubting. Just like the Wimbledon 2004 final, Roddick was the aggressor in the 2nd/3rd set, and Federer was just hanging on for dear life. He started missing forehands. Was tentative on his shots. Started making desperate net rush attempts, on approaches that weren't even half good. Missed ALL the backhand down the line passing shots, which is amazing, because that is one of his best shots.
Roddick messed up at 5-6 3rd set. Played a sloppy game. After that, you could see Federer just loosened up, and Roddick being down, it almost ended up with a bagel.
The ever recurring Federer weakness: unable to serve out the set or match. He's always had that. The last few years were absolutely better, but from time to time you'll still see it. He had it against Blake as well.
Roger is playing at a time when he really has no equal, except for Nadal on clay.
I think he'll dominate for the foreseable future except at the French (which he might win).
A real champion, but he doesn't have the any rivalries like the past.
Roger is gonna be an all time great for sure.
It is a discussion that will never die. Is he so good, or is everyone so bad? The same thing was held against Sampras. He won his slams against Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic and such..His only rival was Agassi.
Depth vs big rivalries..It seems hard to have it both ways. Lack of depth is what made Borg-McEnroe-Connors-Lendl etc. play each other as frequently as they could. The current depth means that everybody is closely matched (except for the very top of course).
Even if he hasn't had a great rivalry, what he has done is impressive. Plenty of guys have dominated for one year. But nobody has ever dominated in such a way for a 3-year stretch. Here comes the guy and breaks virtually any record out there. That is just so freaking sick.
Regardless of what he does in the future (you see him dominating for the near future -- really, who doesn't?), he's already established himself as an alltime great. Top five at the very least. The question is where he'll end up. He's only 25, and is one slam ahead of what Pete had when he was 25. Well on his way to being the greatest ever.
The most talented player...ever. Bit stupid to compare athletes from different sports, but I'd imagine he'd be somewhere at the top of the list.
