Superb audio/video quality for this match! Without many points due to cr. Full version now available here: www.patreon.com/posts/us-open-2006-r-92986975?Link&
Roger Federer may have won fewer slams than Nadal or Djoko, but he epitomized the ideal of kinetic beauty, just like Jordan in basketball or Maradona in football. His game was fluid, his shot selection flawless, and his movement beautifully efficient. His attacking style of play and overall elegance transcended sport and elevated him to the aesthetic realm. That's why people loved him, not because he was well-spoken or well-mannered. He could be sulky and ungracious sometimes, but man, who cared when he played like this. Roddick was just a hard-working athlete. Federer was somewhere beyond the domain of mere mortals.
@@NamTran-xc2ip some people get more educated over time, more mature and smart, but not you my friend. unveliveble how you are in most videos about roger for YEARS, and not a single thing right, most of the times not even understanding what you are responding to, like here. Amazing how your IQ is this low
Tbh court covering speed and defensive skills of Nadal and Djokovic are so good that they developed every answer for Federer's game. Also the courts getting slower helped them as well.
In an off-the-cuff answer to a journalist before a Wimbledoon match with DjJokovic, Federer said some thing like,, "He's got great movement on the court and I have great coordination, so it should be a good match." I would add great intelligence.to Federer's physical gifts. He would be bored to death by several minutes of slugging it out at the baseline, whereas that is almost all that his rivals do. In order to keep himself entertained, he made tennis a spectator sport like no other tennis player in filmed history. .
@@sawgames8623Except not nearly talented enough to pull it off and is a major choke. One of the biggest let downs of the last decade. Mini Fed my ass. What a waste
Really miss those days, especially that year 2006, I remember that Roger only lost 5 matches in the entire year when total matches was 100+ played, unbelievable stuff
His W-L record for 2005 and 2006 is 190-9. 9 losses in 2 years, and most of them came against Nadal on clay...incredible doesn't even begin to cover it.
Roger Federer is just scary good. This extremely high level of play holds up even by today's standards 16 years later. There may be two guys just ahead of him in total grand slams, but Roger is the most natural and dominant player I've ever seen.
Rafael and Novak are better athletes and warriors than Roger. They're quicker to the ball, better court coverage, and both are fearless. Roger plays chess but Rafael and Novak plays for their lives. Andy here is too much of a stiff, and with his poor agility and 2H backhand, Roger the more fluid tennis player can exploit that weak backhand side. Only thing that kept Andy from getting crushed was his thundering serve and strong forehand.
@@junofranco6638 Good stuff. The nice thing about Andy Roddick was that he knew that about himself and his abilities; he said he had a great serve but was otherwise a pretty mediocre player. But he gave it his all with what he had anyway. And he had a wicked sense of dry humour. I applaud him for trying his best against Roger a few times, but he was just outclassed by a guy who was seemingly making little effort vs Roddick who always threw everything and the kitchen sink at him.. lol As for Roger, he's a more pure and relaxing player to watch compared to the high physical intensity of the other two, who make tennis look so intense. Federer seemed to make it look like a walk in the park. How he dominated so much while making it look so easy is what's very impressive to many, I think. The 3 of them are great in their own way. I don't think it's fair to separate them myself. But I do believe that Roger set the benchmark in tennis, especially for Nadal and Djokovic, who constantly wanted to beat and surpass him, which they have done. To me, all 3 are the greatest for unique reasons and for pushing each other to their limits that have produced unprecedented records.
i think his mental strength is the only thing that let his down over the years. His peek is beyond anyone i've ever watched. its crazy. he lost a lot of confidence over the years. just watching him here , his aura is on another level.
2006 he won AO, Wimbledon,US,RG final 2007 the same results Probably it was the most epic domination in ATP of all time The only man who stoped Roger to win all Grand slams two years in a row was Rafa Nadal
actually don't know that Roger would have still won W+USO if he won RG, because pressure mounts the closer a player gets to the Grand Slam and performance is affected. Look at Nole in '21
@@gratler Lol it's absolutely fair. Roddick was his main rival off clay, and all he had was a serve and forehand, and then even his forehand disappeared after 2005. I will give Fed props for dominating his 4 years so thoroughly. That says a lot about his greatness.
@@scottthompson5518 Also I was 6-7 years old during that time and only became interested in tennis at 14-15 years old. So sad that I missed the era in which Federer dominated😪
@@nuvinpooliyadde7319 He was never close to completing the calendar grand slam because he never won RG after AO. He won 3/4, but never was in a situation where momentum was building the way it was for Nole
I think it would be more of a run away. The level of these current guys aren’t as good as 2005-2012. Maybe Alcatraz and a fit Kyrgios can compete. Even djokovic and nadal are a shell of themselves and still mostly winning currently.
@@JackSparrow-qu2mq In 2004 Nadal won against Federer in Miami easily, in 2005, Federer beats Nadal in Miami final in 5 sets. Then they faced sometimes on Hard, in 2011, h2h on hard is 4-4 with Nadal winning against Federer in AO 2009 after playing a 5 setter match against Verdasco in Semi playing more than 5 hours, do you say still "In clay" ? Cuz it's not the case, also, before Federer's come back in 2017, h2h on Hard is 8-7 for Nadal, stop thinking Nadal is only good on clay, or atleast, stop thinking he can't beat Federer on hard cuz he surely does well against Federer on Hard, 3 Wins to 1 at AO for Nadal.
Roddick himself said that the summer of 2006 was when he was playing the best tennis of his life, he felt he could beat anyone except peak Fed. Unfortunately, that’s exactly who he went up against in this match
@@mrlalalaelmo7454 the advertisers like long matches for more ad breaks, the atp liked the drama of epic battles between fed and nadal. Roger got stiffed.
they slowed them down to stop feds dominance. why he had to change his game so much and racket. i still say if they never slowed things down fed would have won a good 4-5 more gs. now for years now all the surfaces are near the same, slow , and they suit novak and nadal much more.
Hardly anyone mentions Poly strings (began at the Roland Garros 1997 with Kuerten using them. These enabled someone to hit down the line and get it in statistically. Again wow about these strings and how amazed when he discovered them in circa '98-'99 I think.
Poor andy roddick. Federer beat him 21 times in their head 2 heads, roddick won just 3 head 2 heads. Roddicks career would have been so decorated if it werent for federer bossing up on him.
@@utkarshpant5297 you can hardly compare the two. Federer beat prime Djokovic in Wimbledon before and still won 8 Wimbledons which is still the record at Wimbledon. How is that not decorated? If that’s the case, then neither Sampras nor djokovic have a “decorated” Wimbledon record. Roddick without Federer would have at least 5 slams. Federer still at least got to 20. Bad comparison
Yes. This was a nightmare matchup for Roddick, even worse than the 20-2 record Serena has over Sharapova. Maria did beat Serena at Wimbledon, and still managed to get 5 slams total in her career, not to mention all the millions Maria got from endorsements.
If Federer is not their Rafael Nadal would have 5 Wimbledon titles not 2 Wimbledon titles actually If Rafael Nadal is not their Federer would have won 5 French open titles They are best in their ways actually.
Good old days... When my life was without problems and i watched this. Now its all different. I lost my sister in 2011 and in 2019 my lovely father 😔 RIP
Andy was such a beast. If his backhand was used more as a offensive weapon and if he was more committed to everyshot( quicker) I think he would have seen many more majors under his belt.
I think the Roddick shirt change wasn't a great idea. Allowed Federer to see in his peripheral vision exactly where Andy was on the court. Especially for pass winners. The black shirt allows Federer to more quickly pick up on where Andy is moving on the court, more time opportunity for Feds to capitalise on hitting away from Andy more clearly. Overheating as well because of the dark shirt.
Wonder how strong Federer was in his heyday? Listen the footwork at 2:00, three steps in less one second. That's why he could always make himself in pefect position and hit winners.
I miss Andy Roddick. He was one of the most exciting players on tour and if that wasn’t enough, he’s also one hell of an MC. Roddick deserved to win that Wimby vs Fed :P
Watching Fed, he could play great tennis at any time, whether wood rackets and grass or poly string and hard court. Without poly strings and slower courts, Nadal and Djokovich would've been Guillermo Vilas.
Dude Roddick was good. I was focused way too much on Federer but Roddick could actually take it to Federer. I remember he played against him in Wimbledon, pretty intense match. Much respect to Roddick.
@@andreaho But that's because that era was weak. And I am not talking about 2008-2011 or 2011-2016... I am talking about 2004-2007. The era in which Roger achieved the greatest success is far weaker in terms of competition than the eras that followed.
@@nikolaivanovic3163 I was a professional player and retired in 2008. I could frankly tell people who keep trash talking about a never-existed weak era, that they know nothing about tennis changes and challenges over years. Stop talking about what you have zero experiments.
I am watching this after Nadal won AO in 2022 and I just want to say the big three players will go down the history as the GOAT and there will never be players like them ever in the future.
This seems like 4 year ago maybe but not 15 ! Vintage Federer, even for two and a half sets, then Fed goes overdrive with his brilliant variety to win in four. Fed was always the bane of Roddick as he was to so many other players. If not for Fed how many more slams would Rod have got ? Wonderful, we will never have it this good again. Bon voyage Roger, Rafa and eventually Novak. Thanks for posting !
@@zokkostenniszone3282 I didn't say surely. I said he could've. I'm only leaning on the side that he could've wonn 4 slams because he did make many finals ultimately and lost to fed in all of them. But like you are indicating maybe he does lose all those finals regardless. I think if not 4 at the very least he wins 1 more.
@@vanshagarwal2362 You are forgetting all the GOATS, Nadal Djoko and the support cast, Murray, Wawrinka, Gonzales, Safin etc. I say two is more realistic.
Look how fast the courts were. The fact Roger was able to win 4 slams post-prime is a miracle. Had the kept the courts fast, he would have won 6 slams post-prime.
Roddick played in the wrong era. Not because he played in Federer's prime, but because he played in a era of tennis with different style of play to his. He's playstyle suited in the 90's big power serves which still somehow like that up to early-mid 2000's when the game is on a transition to much high bouncing and "slower" baseline game.
They also slowed down the courts over his career which hurt his game significantly. It hurt Fed’s game as well, but Roger adapted because he moved so well
Honestly it begs the question how many players were born in the wrong era, or how many were born in the right era. Like, what if Djokovic played in the 80s? Greatest baseliner yes, but that’s also in part because this era suits baseline play. Would he have been as successful in the 70s-80s when net play was dominant? His net game isn’t exactly strong. So I think it’s a curious question.
@@sasook for sure. It barely ever gets talked in terms of comparing great players to each other. Tennis is the rare sport where the conditions of the playing surface affects the outcomes
@@sasook Back then, you have to be good in your S&V then Baseline play second. Now, its almost like even if you dont know how to volley you can win. It just became a luxury. Its about the era they develop. Federer became so good all around cause he was between the S&V and baseline era. Roddick is also caught between both era but he didn't adapt as much as Roger, probably cause only so talented people can do that. For Djokovic, we dont know if he can be a good S&V player or he can duplicate Agassi who was still successful as a pure baseliner in the 80's & 90's.
*US Open 2003. Sampras retires.* Days after his 21st birthday, Roddick wins his first major, and ends the year as World no.1. It is billed as a changing of the guard, and beginning of the 'Roddick years'. *US Open 2012. Roddick retires.* Days after his 30th birthday, Roddick calls time on his playing career, having been unable to add to his maiden slam title. In the intervening years, Roddick reaches 4 further slam finals, but loses to Federer on each occasion. 3 more semi-finals also end in defeat, twice at the hands of Federer. Federer snatches the World no.1 spot from Roddick just weeks into 2004; a position he then occupies for the next 5 years. The one-sided rivalry ends after 24 meetings, with 21 Federer victories, including all 8 match-ups in slams. Roddick endears himself to spectators, with droll and candid interviews after each defeat, and is always magnanimous to Federer. History will define Roddick's career by the rivalry, whereas Federer's greatness will be measured against others.
the g.o.a.t question its not dictated by only slam, have you ever ask to your self why it so fun to watch roger feder play because his play style required perfection and genius instead of brute force, just compared his forehand to nadal or djokovic forehand, his shots are so close to the net while nadal and djokovic use more safe strategy or his ability with half volley or his ability to do something that no one can do....and dont get me wrong im not trying to belittle nadal or jokovic because their capacity to win a point with defensive/offensive shot are above federe...but in terms of pure skill none of them are close to him for me...its like to see maradona
@2:24 "...and he does break.....5-2!" only to break back again. It always amazed me how incredibly good Roddick was and even then he could never beat Roger in a Grand Slam match
Interesting how Roger typically hit way more aces than Andy when they played, and yet Andy's serve was much faster. Roger could get a good read on Andy's serve while Andy could never read Roger's.
because when he was younger, he erupted all the time in rage at mistakes and bad calls. Once he learned to pretend that nothing bothered him, he became almost unbeatable.
I don't think it takes anything away from the achievements of Rafa and Novak to acknowledge that the general slowing down of courts was a big relative disadvantage to Federer. The dude's hands and reactions and decisions were just quicker than anyone else, and the speed of his groundstrokes was ridiculous. He would take the best pace hitters like Roddick and Blake and come back with even more speed. He looked unreal in the early 200's. On the other hand, slower courts and having to deal with tenacious athletes like Rafa/Novak forced him to become a better player, even at the probable expense of some Slams. We got to see incredible levels of tennis genius from all three of those dudes, and I'm thankful for it. Novak will be the most successful tennis player ever (and maybe forever), and Rafa will remain the most indomitable heart. For me, Fed is the goat because at his peak, his was the most sublime form of tennis I've ever seen.
This was when fed would swing through across the body with his forehand. In recent years Fed doesn’t follow through fully instead catching the racket with the left hand. It has more spin now
It's hard for the rest of us to comprehend how a player like Andy Roddick - who had everything most people could possibly dream of - at that moment probably felt like the worst total loser. Huh.
Crazy to think that even discussing the peak Roger Federer era, the only true opposition comes to mind is Nadal, whereas in reality with 5 years of age difference Nadal is basically a NextGen figure to Federer ... More like what Thiem is to Nadal
Which is why I can still accept the argument that Federer is the greatest player of his generation, because Djokovic and Nadal were the generation after.
Can't tell, every matches are different, Federer will play like a God in few matches but not all, same for Djokovic, Federer might win 7 matches and Djokovic 3, if you do repeat the 10 matches again, it will be different and maybe this time Djokovic would be 7-3. Nothing is decided.
when Federer is not looking, he still knows exactly what your next move would be, what you had for breakfast yesterday, and what you'll have for dinner tomorrow LoL
Seeing Tiger in the stands is very nostalgic, the two best athletes from the 2000s against each other. Shame they had a falling out after Tiger’s scandal
Just the first point shows u why he was a great athlete amongst world class athletes , the first point he just rips an amazing forehand winner , he was so disciplined and prepared and ready like all the rare athletes are , which there aren’t that many , to be the best athletes amongst the greatest athletes in the world , it’s a special thing
U just don’t see a forehand as deadly as this , I would say he has the best forehand of all time in tennis and it’s not even close , who else has as much whip and more importantly control as the fed
No way. This is not even close to the best Roddick played against Federer. Wimbledon 2004, 2009, and even the US Open 2007 QF were all better than this. He also had match point against Federer at the ATP finals just a couple months after this.
He never lost it. They nerfed him by making the surfaces slower and the balls heavier. Then racket technology changed, and he had a hard time adjusting to the new bigger racket sizes. This is when defensive players started to find more success on hard court surfaces. Even the grass in Wimbledon was changed into something very slow a few years later. This was the final nail in the coffin for serve-and-volley players. I think 2009 was the last year with fast surface. Then, the era of the defensive players like Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray began. Only Federer had the motivation, talent and willpower to compete against the defensive specialists despite these changes.
Very correct. Defensive boring players era year 2010 till the end of this sport in this world. Most boring era. If same fast court standards had been maintained, roger federer for his enormous talent would have more than 50 grand slams & 200 ATP titles. Boring lucky baseliners benefited from year 2010 onwards in slow dull courts and above all benefited due to past prime aged federer around 30 years from year 2011 onwards, & not even one very good young player born around year 1991 -92 came. Lucky fellows
@@MrClebophd lmao nadal was a wimbledon champion and ao champion before 2010. Djokovic had a slam too. Stop making them as pushers, they are extremely aggressive even though they don't rush the net as much. And baseline wise they blow RF off the court. He benefited from a great serve more than his attacking game. As soon as the rally starts his chances go down.
Roddick was a decent player who had more than just a big serve in his locker. Had he been around at another time other than the Federer era he’d have won more than the single GS. I think Federer tended to have the measure of him in grand slam matches, even if Roddick started well, Federer could outlast him
Roddick's shots couldn't hurt Federer once he decided to change his FH in mid-2005 to have more top spin. He no longer possessed the power from the back of the court to actually be able to rush Fed. Thus, the match-ups became that much easier for Fed, as he could pretty much dictate every point.
Roddick was never a great athlete until 2009, which is when he should have beat Fed at Wimbers. Prior to that he was always something of a poor athlete, something even Rick Macci noticed when he trained at his academy.
Andy Roddick was an unbelievably good player, he just had the misfortune to have his career coincide with Roger Federer. Roger spent 237 CONSECUTIVE weeks as number 1 for a reason. He was untouchable.
