in federers greatest year only nadal and murray beat him,it says alot of the talent murray has even as a 19 year,federer wasnt injured or sick he won toronto and the us open with this sanwiched between
Murray has a winning record against Fed but that doesn't matter, Fed has 16 GS titles, every professional wants to win a GS, a single GS and that speaks volumes about Fed's talent, mental strength, ability to play under pressure, save break points against his serve, convert break points against another player's serve, etc... Fed deserves all the adulatory accolades that have been heaped upon him, his losses just underscore the obvious, that he's human and has off days just like the rest of us.
@federerbestcIass i don't know what you want to prove but this wasn't a grand slam. i know that roger has some problems against murray in the masters 1000 events but when it comes to grand slams roger always kicked his butt!
This match was rubbish, Federer was useless, I remember he stated before the match his only intention going into Cincinnati was to win a couple of matches, not his usual mindset.
i would have loved to have seen fed against agassi sampras sat their peak.......would have been exciting.....but it didnt haapen so we cant judge.....i dont wish to unfairly eulogise or defame anyone....im only interested in having an informed rather a tribal response to questions like is fed the best?i know u r openminded.....one can appreciate both fed and nadal..its hard not to prefer one...its human to pick sides....some prefer the beauty of federers play others will prefer the
That's fine, we all have our opinions and preferences and sure, some people prefer the gritty and defensive play of someone like Rafa and Murray, whereas others prefer the grace and elegance of players like Roger or Nalby. I can't believe that Nalbandian has not achieved more in his career because he is a sublime player who has beaten ALL the top guys.
you are right i think nalby is hugely talented.....really shud have won s slam or two......i dont know y he didnt i just wish tennis had more talent around.i know u thinki roddick is back but his return of serve can be a liability....i thought he was unlucky against fed this time......fed scraping two tiebreaks is hard way to lose yeah?
Definately. Roger did get a touch of luck in the second set tiebreaker, no question about that. But then, all tennis players get a bit of luck now and again. Roddick was just unfortunate that lady luck was not on his side that day.
Not that I could tell. He was serving bomb after bomb and moving well around the court. Perhaps it only really hit him a coupe of days after the match?
whatever style one prefers we need a good mix of styles to create great matches.but there arent enough of them.....fed and murray and nadal get far too many easy matches.....the matches in slams are often nonevents....the current top ten is a bit weak
I think Murray is just way too classy for Federer. Classier than Federer could ever be. Murray has the skillset, the shots, the pure class, and the great looks.
i wish u woke up to Murray arseraping you at night and your mother was watching with her dildo. You'd enjoy it you fudgepacking cunting gimp brained cock. If you love murray so much why don't you become his own personal rent boy.
Federer just killed Murray in the Cincinnati Masters 2009.. I told u, Murray is no Federer...Feds will whop his ass most of the time. The only time Murray beat him was when Feds had severe back problems lol
yes fed beat him didnt kill him it was nip and tuck in tiebreaker but i never said murray was better than fed.just that feds game collapses under pressure.murray seems to have bottled
well at his age fed hadnt done much either fed was a bit of a tard.....had to wait til the good players were retired or halfway in the knackers yard....i have no respect for federer as a competitor...lendl and connors wud have destroyed him as wud have courier......
You said that Roddick is a 'bitch' so if Murray can beat Roger, why can't he beat the 'bitch?' Why couldn't he beat Verdasco, why couldn't he beat Gonzalez, why couldn't he beat Nadal, why couldn't he beat Del Potro? I'd really like to knpw.
With all due respect to Lendl and Connors, Rog has almost twice as many slam titles combined. As for Courier, he has almost 4 times as many slams. Now please tell me "its cuz he waz in a fukin weak era biyatch and all da other cunts were in the fukin knackers yard hahaha"
yes exactly......u phrase it beautifully...now go email your pal rog to let him know hes a pussyslambitch who never beat anyone of significance except nadal on grass.and if thats his apogee then that says it all.one would never have witnessed kuerten reeling sampras in on grass year by year as nadal has to roger(me and weepypants are not on first name terms)
Year by year? Last time I counted, it was once. Kuerten was never a good grass player to begin with. How many Wimbledon finals did he reach? Rafa is an all-round player, as he has demonstrated numerous times. Kuerten won all of his slams at RG so he wasn't exactly on all-rounder.
But that's why Krajicek beat Sampras more times than Sampras beat him. What is that supposed to signify to you? That Krajicek is a better player?
i suggest to you that a head to head record of 19 to 2 like roddick fed is meaningful.i suggest a 5 4 record of sampras to krajcek is fairly inconclusive....especially as sampras lost at least one match on a tiebreaker....if sampras was 8 to 2 down id say clearly despite his slams krajcek owned sampras....sampras is not the greatest...no player is was or could be.we cannot know how good fed would have been if he had been a contemporay of laver for example.i hope you can admit the folly of it.
No without the luxury of a time-machine, there's no way to know how Laver and Federer would have played against each other. I don't doubt that I'm not the most objective when it comes to Roger but no one can deny the incredible things he has done and the records he has broken in a very short space of time.
he has has an amazing career....but before federer there were great players and after him there will be others....it is a question to ask is federer so good that if he had shared his era with two or more other great players....whether he would have dominated so much...my own view is that when there are lots of busy fishing boats the catch of each is reduced.
I agree. Agassi, Sampras, Borg, Edberg, etc were all great players and no disrespect them but I just think (again, my own subjective view) that Roger is the best. I know its practically impossible to measure from an objective point of view but I don't pretend to be 100% objective when it comes to Roger.
If he is a pussyslambitch, then Murray must be a nonpussyslambitch because he got bitchslapped in the semis of Wimbledon by a 'weak era' player, just as he was beaten he in Cincinatti by the same 'weak era' player.
All of his 'come ons' and 'fuck this' and 'fuck that' didn't help him much lol.
i agree with your description of murray entirely.he has alot to learn.going after fed is not enough.he needs to beat top guys and the roddicks.fed is good at crushing inferior players.he has built an amazing slam record on it.nadal wont match fed because he is a converted claY COURTER but imo he is one one one too good for fed....murray is not as talented as fed but fed is an artist and murray knows how to disrupt his game.like nadal its by being dogged and not bowing....
Fair enough, we all have different opinions. Some people think Rafa is better, others think Roger is better. We will no doubt have a clearer understanding when they both retire. I do agree, though that Rafa and Murray are awkward match-ups for Roger, not because they have more talent but because they are defensive players that force attacking players to go closer and closer to the lines, eventually drawing the unforced error. But tennis is much more about a one-on-one battle between two players.
i agree federer is a more aesthetic player to watch than rafa and murray of course but its not like ice skating....there are no marks for artistic merit...i think federers style is what makes him so successful because he is so much more talented than most players...i would say mcenroe was easily as beautiful a player to watch...but ugly players who sacrifice style for performance can be tough to beat..that is why they adopt the style they do.
He also doesn't expend very much energy on court due to his fluidic movement. That's why he will have a very long, pretty much injury-free career as opposed to Rafa and probably Murray too. I was too young to watch McEnroe in his carly career and so don't know that much about his tennis, only from the short clips I've seen on youtube.
i agree fed has a style which takes pressure of his legs.but the criticism of rafa that hes an athlete with a racket and fed is a tennis player is unfair since tennis is about athleticism at its core as much as controlof racket head etc....in order to get into a good hitting position one needs to get to the ball.murray and nadal will have less slams....but 4 me murray nadal and fed are the big 3 right now.
Its very unfair because Rafa clearly has a lot of talent. Hard work alone will only get you so far, just as talent alone will only get you so far. I think Roddick may surprise a few people now that he is playing great tennis again.
But I agree, winning ugly is still a win. I suppose I'm just 'old fashioned' in the sense that I like more classical and artistic styles of tennis, rather than this new generation which seems to emphasise running down all balls and just defending until the opponent makes an error. I know Rafa doesn't do that all the time but he is first and foremost a defensive player, just like Murray.
you must consider rafa learnt as a claycourter.....it is a tactical style involving position...its the chess of tennis on clay.hard court and grass is more about big weapons and control of pace.rafa has had to learn how to play on hc and grass and its astonishing hes upset fed on such surfaces.fed should beat nadal on grass and hc....for me fed is diminished by these defeats since as he himself said at oz these r matches he shud win.murray has less of an excuse since he has a big game
I don't think at Wimbledon last year you could really call it an 'upset' because let's face it, he did reach the final 3 years running which demonstrates that he is a great player on grass. It really could have gone either way, just as the Aussie open could have but from what I hear, Roger just collapsed in the final set for whatever reason (probably the fact that his idol Laver would be watching him was added pressure)
why does roger collapse under severe pressure?do u suppose its psychological?we saw tom watson collapse in the playoff and hole 18...so it can happen to great players.
He doesn't. Not as far as I know. He's been under severe pressure plenty of times before and has come through i.e. FO '09, Wimb '09, Wimb '07, USO Open '05, Miami '05 and the list goes on. I would say even Wimb '08 because he faced championship point on more than one occasion and pulled through to 5 sets.
Tom Watson was clearly physically fatigued at the end whereas Cink had nothing to lose, considering he never won a major before.
i mean he suffers under pressure against great players....i dont consider haas roddick or soderling in that category....i think watson did succumb to pressure...doing a seven on the par 5 hole seventeen...watsaon in golf has been wat fed in tennis has been to you.
He wasn't only facing Soderling but the world media who was saying: "If he doesn't win it this time, he never will" and at Wim '09 he wasn't only facing a rejuvenated Roddick who a couple of days earlier had shown "The Great Andy Murray" the door. He was facing the pressure of history, all the tennis greats had their eyes on him, seeing if he would crumble under the pressure of surprassing the hallowed No. 14.
Again, how does one define a 'great' tennis player? Is it someone who has won at least one slam? How many slams does a person need to win to be considered 'great?' Does it mean how many Masters Cups they've won or how many titles they have?
I think comparing Tiger Woods with Roger would be more appropriate, considering Woods is the No. 1 golfer and holds the most majors on tour. And speaking of Tiger, he never even made the cut. Does that mean he is not a great golfer?
Or simply 'suffered' under the pressure? Also, in Wimbledon '07, he was 15-40 down in the 5th set on his serve and was about to be broken. In Miami 2005, he was two points away from losing the match in the 3rd set. If you don't consider that pressure, may I ask what 'pressure' means to you?
no he is not slowing down. I think he is still feeling the affects of mononucleosis he had early this year. Something like that can take a fair amount of time to heal from. It can take up to 6 months for someone to fully heal from some thing like that.
mario ancic had mono and he had to take a break for 6 months, so all this thing on roger having mono is wierd, im not saying he didn´t have something, what the hell do other people know except the ones who are going through it..I just don´t understand why he was physically able to play if he had it..
he also ended federers streak of 17 finals,55 match north american winning streak
adrenilenepotato 2 months ago
in federers greatest year only nadal and murray beat him,it says alot of the talent murray has even as a 19 year,federer wasnt injured or sick he won toronto and the us open with this sanwiched between
adrenilenepotato 2 months ago
And Murray still has a winning head to head, all these years later.
benegeseritwhore 3 months ago
roger was 92 - 5 in 2006, i never knew that he lost one of them to murray.
BEAUTEEM 6 months ago
Murray has a winning record against Fed but that doesn't matter, Fed has 16 GS titles, every professional wants to win a GS, a single GS and that speaks volumes about Fed's talent, mental strength, ability to play under pressure, save break points against his serve, convert break points against another player's serve, etc... Fed deserves all the adulatory accolades that have been heaped upon him, his losses just underscore the obvious, that he's human and has off days just like the rest of us.
jtatsiue 11 months ago
what an upset :D
UltimateTopspin 11 months ago
the fact is that roger kicks murray's ass in the grand slams.
gutilis1 1 year ago
@gutilis1 This match was also a fact, wasn't it?...
federerbestcIass 5 months ago
@federerbestcIass i don't know what you want to prove but this wasn't a grand slam. i know that roger has some problems against murray in the masters 1000 events but when it comes to grand slams roger always kicked his butt!
gutilis1 5 months ago
@gutilis1 I agree...thats another fact....Murray doesn't seem to be agressive enough to win a slam :( :(
federerbestcIass 5 months ago
This match was rubbish, Federer was useless, I remember he stated before the match his only intention going into Cincinnati was to win a couple of matches, not his usual mindset.
MaratSafinVideos 1 year ago
That was such a huge upset. Federer's only other losses that year were to Nadal.
u2546149 2 years ago
did they broken each other serv for like 10 times??crazy
napajedlacek 2 years ago
i would have loved to have seen fed against agassi sampras sat their peak.......would have been exciting.....but it didnt haapen so we cant judge.....i dont wish to unfairly eulogise or defame anyone....im only interested in having an informed rather a tribal response to questions like is fed the best?i know u r openminded.....one can appreciate both fed and nadal..its hard not to prefer one...its human to pick sides....some prefer the beauty of federers play others will prefer the
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
greater will to win i imo we see in rafa and murray.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
That's fine, we all have our opinions and preferences and sure, some people prefer the gritty and defensive play of someone like Rafa and Murray, whereas others prefer the grace and elegance of players like Roger or Nalby. I can't believe that Nalbandian has not achieved more in his career because he is a sublime player who has beaten ALL the top guys.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
you are right i think nalby is hugely talented.....really shud have won s slam or two......i dont know y he didnt i just wish tennis had more talent around.i know u thinki roddick is back but his return of serve can be a liability....i thought he was unlucky against fed this time......fed scraping two tiebreaks is hard way to lose yeah?
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Definately. Roger did get a touch of luck in the second set tiebreaker, no question about that. But then, all tennis players get a bit of luck now and again. Roddick was just unfortunate that lady luck was not on his side that day.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i read also rodick injured himself at end of fourth set?i didnt watch the fifth set.did roddick struggle in his movement?
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Not that I could tell. He was serving bomb after bomb and moving well around the court. Perhaps it only really hit him a coupe of days after the match?
Ryan81M 2 years ago
whatever style one prefers we need a good mix of styles to create great matches.but there arent enough of them.....fed and murray and nadal get far too many easy matches.....the matches in slams are often nonevents....the current top ten is a bit weak
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
murray bitchslaps fed again....take it bitch!yeah!u know u like it swissboi!
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
federer the princess cant handle tough competitors..he prefers his bitches like roddick soderling....
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
And the 'bitch' Roddick beat Murray in the middle of London. So what does that make Murray?
Ryan81M 2 years ago
I think Murray is just way too classy for Federer. Classier than Federer could ever be. Murray has the skillset, the shots, the pure class, and the great looks.
dsgsu 2 years ago
well was with u so far...but looks.they r both fugly bastards.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
lol I was joking lol. How could Murry, the gimp, outclass Federer lol lol lol Maybe in another life.
dsgsu 2 years ago
but he has outclassed him.even as far back as 2006.jokes on you moron.....haha
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Who won you cretin? Federer... Murray has done fuck all for tennis you gimp. Go fuck your dad.
dsgsu 2 years ago
a better question...who did he beat?answer to use your word cretins.murray has at least shown us that the goat is a bit of a nanny?
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
i wish u woke up to Murray arseraping you at night and your mother was watching with her dildo. You'd enjoy it you fudgepacking cunting gimp brained cock. If you love murray so much why don't you become his own personal rent boy.
dsgsu 2 years ago
because you are so much cheaper i cant get a gig
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
i did.....luckily i had some ky so i took it like a man....
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Federer just killed Murray in the Cincinnati Masters 2009.. I told u, Murray is no Federer...Feds will whop his ass most of the time. The only time Murray beat him was when Feds had severe back problems lol
dsgsu 2 years ago
yes fed beat him didnt kill him it was nip and tuck in tiebreaker but i never said murray was better than fed.just that feds game collapses under pressure.murray seems to have bottled
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
hahahhaahahha federer is clueless when playing muzza murray! murray owns this cunt federer! federer cannot beat murray.
stealthpakfa 2 years ago
us open 2008. woot!
dogshouse 2 years ago
so true...fed is really a little bitch against tough competitors.....he so loves his soderlings and ivo karlovics
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
federer greatest of all time....apparently...shame he cant beat murray very often.....the redhead scot has got his number..
doyle1971a 2 years ago
Shame the Scot hasn't done too well in slams this year though.....
Ryan81M 2 years ago
well at his age fed hadnt done much either fed was a bit of a tard.....had to wait til the good players were retired or halfway in the knackers yard....i have no respect for federer as a competitor...lendl and connors wud have destroyed him as wud have courier......
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
You said that Roddick is a 'bitch' so if Murray can beat Roger, why can't he beat the 'bitch?' Why couldn't he beat Verdasco, why couldn't he beat Gonzalez, why couldn't he beat Nadal, why couldn't he beat Del Potro? I'd really like to knpw.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
With all due respect to Lendl and Connors, Rog has almost twice as many slam titles combined. As for Courier, he has almost 4 times as many slams. Now please tell me "its cuz he waz in a fukin weak era biyatch and all da other cunts were in the fukin knackers yard hahaha"
Ryan81M 2 years ago
yes exactly......u phrase it beautifully...now go email your pal rog to let him know hes a pussyslambitch who never beat anyone of significance except nadal on grass.and if thats his apogee then that says it all.one would never have witnessed kuerten reeling sampras in on grass year by year as nadal has to roger(me and weepypants are not on first name terms)
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Year by year? Last time I counted, it was once. Kuerten was never a good grass player to begin with. How many Wimbledon finals did he reach? Rafa is an all-round player, as he has demonstrated numerous times. Kuerten won all of his slams at RG so he wasn't exactly on all-rounder.
But that's why Krajicek beat Sampras more times than Sampras beat him. What is that supposed to signify to you? That Krajicek is a better player?
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i suggest to you that a head to head record of 19 to 2 like roddick fed is meaningful.i suggest a 5 4 record of sampras to krajcek is fairly inconclusive....especially as sampras lost at least one match on a tiebreaker....if sampras was 8 to 2 down id say clearly despite his slams krajcek owned sampras....sampras is not the greatest...no player is was or could be.we cannot know how good fed would have been if he had been a contemporay of laver for example.i hope you can admit the folly of it.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
No without the luxury of a time-machine, there's no way to know how Laver and Federer would have played against each other. I don't doubt that I'm not the most objective when it comes to Roger but no one can deny the incredible things he has done and the records he has broken in a very short space of time.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
he has has an amazing career....but before federer there were great players and after him there will be others....it is a question to ask is federer so good that if he had shared his era with two or more other great players....whether he would have dominated so much...my own view is that when there are lots of busy fishing boats the catch of each is reduced.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
I agree. Agassi, Sampras, Borg, Edberg, etc were all great players and no disrespect them but I just think (again, my own subjective view) that Roger is the best. I know its practically impossible to measure from an objective point of view but I don't pretend to be 100% objective when it comes to Roger.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
If he is a pussyslambitch, then Murray must be a nonpussyslambitch because he got bitchslapped in the semis of Wimbledon by a 'weak era' player, just as he was beaten he in Cincinatti by the same 'weak era' player.
All of his 'come ons' and 'fuck this' and 'fuck that' didn't help him much lol.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i agree with your description of murray entirely.he has alot to learn.going after fed is not enough.he needs to beat top guys and the roddicks.fed is good at crushing inferior players.he has built an amazing slam record on it.nadal wont match fed because he is a converted claY COURTER but imo he is one one one too good for fed....murray is not as talented as fed but fed is an artist and murray knows how to disrupt his game.like nadal its by being dogged and not bowing....
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Fair enough, we all have different opinions. Some people think Rafa is better, others think Roger is better. We will no doubt have a clearer understanding when they both retire. I do agree, though that Rafa and Murray are awkward match-ups for Roger, not because they have more talent but because they are defensive players that force attacking players to go closer and closer to the lines, eventually drawing the unforced error. But tennis is much more about a one-on-one battle between two players.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i agree federer is a more aesthetic player to watch than rafa and murray of course but its not like ice skating....there are no marks for artistic merit...i think federers style is what makes him so successful because he is so much more talented than most players...i would say mcenroe was easily as beautiful a player to watch...but ugly players who sacrifice style for performance can be tough to beat..that is why they adopt the style they do.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
He also doesn't expend very much energy on court due to his fluidic movement. That's why he will have a very long, pretty much injury-free career as opposed to Rafa and probably Murray too. I was too young to watch McEnroe in his carly career and so don't know that much about his tennis, only from the short clips I've seen on youtube.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i agree fed has a style which takes pressure of his legs.but the criticism of rafa that hes an athlete with a racket and fed is a tennis player is unfair since tennis is about athleticism at its core as much as controlof racket head etc....in order to get into a good hitting position one needs to get to the ball.murray and nadal will have less slams....but 4 me murray nadal and fed are the big 3 right now.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
Its very unfair because Rafa clearly has a lot of talent. Hard work alone will only get you so far, just as talent alone will only get you so far. I think Roddick may surprise a few people now that he is playing great tennis again.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
But I agree, winning ugly is still a win. I suppose I'm just 'old fashioned' in the sense that I like more classical and artistic styles of tennis, rather than this new generation which seems to emphasise running down all balls and just defending until the opponent makes an error. I know Rafa doesn't do that all the time but he is first and foremost a defensive player, just like Murray.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
you must consider rafa learnt as a claycourter.....it is a tactical style involving position...its the chess of tennis on clay.hard court and grass is more about big weapons and control of pace.rafa has had to learn how to play on hc and grass and its astonishing hes upset fed on such surfaces.fed should beat nadal on grass and hc....for me fed is diminished by these defeats since as he himself said at oz these r matches he shud win.murray has less of an excuse since he has a big game
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
I don't think at Wimbledon last year you could really call it an 'upset' because let's face it, he did reach the final 3 years running which demonstrates that he is a great player on grass. It really could have gone either way, just as the Aussie open could have but from what I hear, Roger just collapsed in the final set for whatever reason (probably the fact that his idol Laver would be watching him was added pressure)
Ryan81M 2 years ago
why does roger collapse under severe pressure?do u suppose its psychological?we saw tom watson collapse in the playoff and hole 18...so it can happen to great players.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
He doesn't. Not as far as I know. He's been under severe pressure plenty of times before and has come through i.e. FO '09, Wimb '09, Wimb '07, USO Open '05, Miami '05 and the list goes on. I would say even Wimb '08 because he faced championship point on more than one occasion and pulled through to 5 sets.
Tom Watson was clearly physically fatigued at the end whereas Cink had nothing to lose, considering he never won a major before.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
i mean he suffers under pressure against great players....i dont consider haas roddick or soderling in that category....i think watson did succumb to pressure...doing a seven on the par 5 hole seventeen...watsaon in golf has been wat fed in tennis has been to you.
hotfuzzy82 2 years ago
He wasn't only facing Soderling but the world media who was saying: "If he doesn't win it this time, he never will" and at Wim '09 he wasn't only facing a rejuvenated Roddick who a couple of days earlier had shown "The Great Andy Murray" the door. He was facing the pressure of history, all the tennis greats had their eyes on him, seeing if he would crumble under the pressure of surprassing the hallowed No. 14.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
Again, how does one define a 'great' tennis player? Is it someone who has won at least one slam? How many slams does a person need to win to be considered 'great?' Does it mean how many Masters Cups they've won or how many titles they have?
I think comparing Tiger Woods with Roger would be more appropriate, considering Woods is the No. 1 golfer and holds the most majors on tour. And speaking of Tiger, he never even made the cut. Does that mean he is not a great golfer?
Ryan81M 2 years ago
Or simply 'suffered' under the pressure? Also, in Wimbledon '07, he was 15-40 down in the 5th set on his serve and was about to be broken. In Miami 2005, he was two points away from losing the match in the 3rd set. If you don't consider that pressure, may I ask what 'pressure' means to you?
Ryan81M 2 years ago
BTW, when Murray beat Roger here, guess who he lost to afterwards? Roddick, the 'bitch' lol.
Ryan81M 2 years ago
murray was what rank at this year
polipoli7 2 years ago
he was 17 after this week so he must of been around 25 26 in the match
tvvideos365 2 years ago
i like the viewpoint from 3.30
navarrelondon 2 years ago
i have the same highlights...xD nice match too bad federer lost it(((
this is from kirschbomb right? or bachikho or whatever his/her name is...:DDD
KikasisIluvya 3 years ago
no he is not slowing down. I think he is still feeling the affects of mononucleosis he had early this year. Something like that can take a fair amount of time to heal from. It can take up to 6 months for someone to fully heal from some thing like that.
blackmohawk234 3 years ago
mario ancic had mono and he had to take a break for 6 months, so all this thing on roger having mono is wierd, im not saying he didn´t have something, what the hell do other people know except the ones who are going through it..I just don´t understand why he was physically able to play if he had it..
reefric 3 years ago
wtf is up with federer, he's really slowing down
uchihasasuke444 3 years ago