Roger Federer plays a different game of Tennis. Federer march through 2004 had its roots in winning the Master Cup tournament at the end of 2003. At the beginning of the 2003 season, Andre Agassi won the Australian Open then the young stars took over. The young clay master J.C. Ferraro won the French, Federer nabbed the Wimbledon and Andy Roddick captured the U.S. Open. At the end of the 2003 season, Federer was ranked number two behind Roddick with Ferraro third. The young stars were in charge of the sport but as the 2004 season began, the question that remained was- which of these young stars would take control?
Ferraro, the master of the clay surface, fell prey to injuries and chicken pox as his performance slipped. Andy Roddick continued his improvement shown in 2003 but Federer overshadowed the young America as the Swiss took his game to stratosphere not seen in years. Not since the late 80’s, had a player won three majors in one season. Not even the great Sampras accomplished that.
Federer performance against Hewitt proved a lesson in Tennis. The Young Australian came into the final playing his best Tennis since he won the U.S. Open in 2001. Lleyton Hewitt had yet to lose a set in the previous six matches of the tournament and he appeared at his peak. Quick and dogged, Hewitt had the skills to upset Federer. But on this day, those skills paled in comparison to the master as Federer was at his best.
Federer game has reached a new level rarely seen in Tennis. It is a game without apparent effort and his mastery of the game is without peer. Federer seems able to guide the ball in places just out of reach of his opponent rackets or he seems to place it just inside the legal boundaries. Just when you think that Federer is out of place, he glides to the ball and before you know it, the ball bounds just inside the line. While Hewitt appears to sprint to the ball, Federer strides to the ball. Federer pace appears control but it hides the ground that he makes up in quick fashion.
Article comments
1 - Will Clark
Federer is the Michael Jordan of his sport ??? Well, I guess that places him about 10th on the all-time list because Jordan was one of the most overrated, one-dimensional players in the game of basketball. I'll take a Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson any day - and Jordan's teams wouldn't have had a chance against the 80 Lakers or Oscar's Bucks.
Yes, Federer had a great year. So have a bunch of other guys in the history of tennis. Oh, the history of tennis ?? Yes - something to check out before making sweeping generalizations. Until he passes 14, Federer is far down the list to a number of guys including Sampras at the top - Borg, McEnroe and Agassi. Will he top Pete's mark ?? Who knows. No one thought Borg would retire at 26 when he was holding the Wimbledon trophy in 80 (his 5th). Everyone thought McEnroe would have many more than he ended up with. But, he mentally disappeared at different stages in his career. Check the numbers on McEnroe's '83(I believe) year and compare them with Federer's. May be suprised.
Let's let Roger Federer play tennis - he's got a long way to go. As far as I'm concerned - Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer of all time - he's earned it by a longshot. Is Tiger Woods the greatest ? No. Jack is. But, maybe Tiger will be. But, he'll have to top Jack's 18 - then I'll say - yes, nice job Tiger.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Offense, defense and six championships. Yep, that's pretty one-dimensional.
3 - Will Clark
Your comment shows how little you know of the game of basketball. Please - refrain from the discussion unless you have something to bring to the table.
4 - joel
Well, from what I've been reading all over the Net, there is a raging war on whether Federer or Pete is the greatest player of all time in tennis. We really cannot say. Nobody could determine that. It's just like asking if Kasparov at his peak would be able to beat Bobby F. at his peak. Everything is pure speculation. But if I'm forced to bet, let's say Pete and Federer tomorrow? It has to be the latter, I mean...Pete is OLD.
5 - willcodfish
Oh, sure - Pete isn't in tournament shape at all right now. I remember Borg making a teeny comback - perhaps after a year of being retired, maybe a bit more - he wasn't even close - getting smoked by several clowns who wouldn't have held his jock pre-retirement. You almost never see anyone take a significant time off the tour and ever regain anything close to their earlier form.
Besides - and true - Pete is too old now - younger legs make all the difference in the game of tennis. In their primes ? Yeah - hard to say - would have been an excellent rivalry, though - I enjoy seeing a guy truly up against the wall - and seeing how he comes out of it. Pete never really was in that position and Federer hasn't been as of yet. I do have to say I wish they would have overlapped a bit more. But, those are the cards we're dealt, I suppose.
6 - Roger is boring
Yawn