Home > Tennis > Roger Federer serves up a stunning reason why he's a 5-star Wimbledon champion
by Brian Lomax on 09 July 2007
Email this Article (13) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
Comments (13)
by Shane Robinson on July 09, 2007
Two of the ugliest chimps to ever grace sport and they share the record. Tennis sucks from a great height, what a waste of time. It's biggest tournament is in England and the game isn't even played at a widespread level in the country. Just an excuse for toffs and snobs to wear their best and the increasingly useless royals to hand over some trophies. What a heap of posturing and pretentious nonsense
by Richard on July 09, 2007
what are you talking about shane, everybody who has some cultivation appreciates tennins even if they do not play it, its a game of finesse, elegance and individual brilliance. I mean you dont see tennis fans going around calling football fans low class low life scum, football is a great game too. Well if no one was interested in tennis then there wouldnt be so much of prize money and sponsorships would there. If you have something against the upper class or the royalty i suggest that you take it elsewhere, and yes i agree with you that they really can be quite idiotic, but leave tennis out of it, u have class issues mans go join the commies,
Not class issues persay, it just baffles me how the royals get such loyalty when they do nothing for your country other than leech of it while the rest of you work hard to keep them in diamonds and furs
by lolita on July 09, 2007
I agree Nadal was the better player before the decider. If the decider scored 7-6 in a tiebreak then for sure Federer was lucky to win. The score was 6-2 so luck definitely had nothing to do with it. Federer just played better than Nadal in the final set. I actually see Djokovic and not Nadal winning at Wimbledon. His game is more complete.
by Steffani on July 10, 2007
Finally an epic 5-set men's final at Wimbledon after many years. In the 4th set, Rafa had so much momentum that it looked like he could take the championship, but once he became injured, the match changed. I think he can win next year... And for those of you who don't like tennis, read and comment on articles about other sports. You're wasting our time here.
by Richard on July 10, 2007
who cares about the royals shane, their only use is to provide us with some much needed reality tv, i mean come on look at them. u were dissing tennis, so the sharp comments. good day mate
by Geoff on July 10, 2007
While I was certainly impressed with Rafa's performance in the final, Federer again showed why he is the most dominant athlete of this generation. He had the ability to dig his way out of two 15-40 jams in the 5th, he overcame several annoyingly close calls by hawkeye where the ball seemed to be tangent to the line in each case. During the entire match, I felt like Roger still had another gear but he never really got there, yet still it was enough for the title. Rafa is a tough matchup for him and it is obvious that Roger is not comfortable playing him. I'm not sure that Rafa's injury is what caused him to lose the 5th set but I give Rafa credit for not mentioning it as an excuse in any of the press conferences I heard. As a Federer fan I was getting tired of seeing Rafa serve out wide to his backhand on the ad court. Fed should have been moving in to cut down the angle. Roger had a ton of pressure on him while Rafa had nothing to lose. I expect the pressure to be even greater on Federer next year, and shoul
by gej on July 10, 2007
Shane, why watch tennis if today's and yesterday's champs are handsome enough for you? Shouldn't you be whacking it to a photo of Beckham, or maybe curled up under the sheets with Jose Canseco's "Juiced"? Maybe you can send away for a pair of Rafa's wedgied underwear. Quit pretending you care about sports and go back to watching Designing Women, you creep.
by bobby on July 10, 2007
Thanks for the article.Hail the future king!.It is Rafael nadal and he will break every records.Very shortly he is going to take federer`s place.For those who dont believe,time will prove that rafa is indeed the best ever.
by Glen Janney on July 11, 2007
Roger was jubilant, then Sue Barker asked him about being down 15-40 twice in the fifth set, and what was he supposed to say, "I served my way out of trouble, even throwing in a brilliant second serve after Rafa raised his hand to throw off my service motion at 2-2, 15-40, and then I made him pay by kicking his ass in his next service game"? Of course he was diplomatic and said he was "lucky". As "lucky" as Rafa was that Fed played a sloppy service game at 4-5 in the second set and thus didn't send the Majorcan home in straight sets.
by gej on July 11, 2007
He will be known as the best ever at pulling his shorts out of his ass crack.
by t.k.s on July 11, 2007
To the writer, you must be fair if you want to show your idea. Roger's matches at wimby this year were tough as last year. For Nadal, he's so lucky because Djokovic was injured (still he won the first set)and had no gas in his tank. He lost not because Nadal is great and could beat him. I don't understand why all you guys notice what Nadal did every time he played and had some problems. I can say that sometimes he cheated, made eyes contact to his coach. Those Nadal's behaviors should be blamed, not admired. For me, I think if he still plays like this, he'll never be the great ever as you need him to be. Roger is the real Gentleman on and off court (the way he said to Nadal at the net is so good). This year he had much pressure as you do know. Nadal had nothing to lose just wait and try to steal trophy as he can, that's it. Roger is much better than Nadal, SURE!
by Jonathan on October 02, 2007
i don't know if it's luck per se that roger won. Sure, it all came down to a couple of points, but federer <b> won </b> them. it's not like they magically came from the sky. and many matches come down to a couple of points, or one player seems to be better but still loses. at the French Open 1984, McEnroe was up 2 sets to love and was 4-2 in the third against Lendl but ultimately lost in five sets. in this French Open Federer converted 1 out of 17 break points. So were Lendl and Nadal lucky? I don't know what you guys think, but I think that the player that deserved to win was the one that won.
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Can Liverpool cope without Torres over Christmas? Manchester United and Chelsea are watching!
Messi, Lampard, Kaka - who can get the Golden Ball off Manchester United's Cristiano Ronaldo?
Vegas jackpot! Pacquiao shoots for boxing immortality as De La Hoya defends his legacy