There's a version of this match with commentary by Ted Robinson, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi where Agassi explains the difference between playing Peter and Roger. He said Pete would play average the whole match and brilliant for 10 minutes and you'd lose by the same score no matter how YOU played. But, if you played Roger, he could squeeze you from anywhere on the court at any time in the match and you could play your best tennis and still lose 6-1, 6-2.
Roddick tried hitting with 100% power in every ground stroke, then approached the net without expecting Federer to return a high-quality wide-angle deep ball, resulting in the loss of many points.
Andy's net game was subpar cuz he didn't put shots away. When Fed plays shots at the net, he puts it away to the corners or to the side. instead Andy just blocks the shots at the net and let them hang around randomly allowing Fed to get to them. Then he's just left dangling vulnerable. So in that aspect, he didn't really play lights out. He played his best, perhaps, but he left much on the table, which Fed didn't need to ask twice to take from.
@@Jonathan-mp3ju Lol, about that comparison -- as far as I know MJ didn't get his butt kicked 1-4 in the finals by his main rival -- and if it were to happen, nobody on earth would've called him GOAT, well except perhaps lunatics like you. That fact is, Djokovic has passed Federer a while ago, and that gap can only get bigger.
@@Jonathan-mp3ju. True. Without disparaging other greats, if we consider HOW wins were accumulated, Federer stands head and shoulders above any other contender so far..
@@user-yd6ef1yo9d Yes. It takes more than stats to determine the GOAT of any sport. Yes, they must have impressive numbers, but the impact they had on the sport and their ability to transcend the sport on a global level is what matter just as much if not more. You have to look at the big picture and have the ability to put things into perspective, not just numbers. Many gen-z and millennials don't understand this.
@@Kidgloves1984 Maybe. But playing a genius like Roger, the standard ATP tour play tactics will not cut it. You need something like Djokovic’s human backboard robotics, or Nadal’s extreme topspin attacking Roger’s backhand, but at the end of Roger’s career he figured out how to neutralize Nadal’s topspin. Djokovic was a work in progress for Roger, but father time had other plans.
Roddick was good enough in his prime to win multiple Grand Slams but Federer was great enough to stop him. Roddick interviews Federer: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mzP8-4D0o9w.htmlsi=JflXHB79h_wF2WA_
It seems the consensus among the majority of tennis fans is that Joke is the "stat" vulture/ weak era GOAT (thanks to too many Berritini/ Ruud/ Tsitsipas/ Norrie Opens) while Federer is seen as the true GOAT. I'm happy most people know the truth!
His fans would say otherwise but yeah can norrie in the semis at Wimbledon, followed by Berretini in the final, 😬 as well as his AO 23 draw which was piss easy
We may or may not like Nole, but the figures do not allow discussion. We should not confuse playing style, which is somewhat subjective, with numbers that are cold. I like Federer's way of playing better, but Djokovic surpassed him and everyone so far.
😂😂 among Federer fans for sure..among ppl that understand tennis everyone says that Roger had a free pass for 5 years from 2004 to 2008. But hey, you guys keep coming up with excuses to justify that Roger not only is not the goat but he is not even the 2nd best😂
Groumet and tension. Weight... Balance . String product name grips picture. Money wage and earnnings' K unit. Metric talent. Boozer. Beer ... Cooking...
When Nadal came and soon became better than Federer, I wish always that Federer win, because Nadal seem like a bad boy. But even that way, Federer accept to give his crow to Nadal. When Djokovic came in a warrior style like a viking and not like a Federer behavior, Federer come down in my concept, for did not recognize the Djokovic talent and superiority !!
He played much better than Federer in the first two sets, destroying Federer both winners and performance wise but sadly struggled in the crucial points
I would disagree that the one who plays better always wins the set. There were many matches by Lindsay Davenport for example where she played better than her opponents but still lost. In the 2005 Wimbledon final against Venus she was ahead almost the entire match but still lost after a back injury in the final 5 service games. She held match points and lost.
Its amazing how people call Djoker the stat-vulture when he literally dominated the era of the Big 3, which is clearly the most stacked era in tennis history. Meanwhile Fed did most his winning before the Big 3 even became a thing, against a bunch of 1 slam wonders or Berdych and Nalbandian. Total joke. The guy who dominated Big 3 era had it easy, and the guy who dominated a bunch of nobodies but then could barely win once the Big 3 happened had the harder road? Ridiculous
