Remarkable Roger

It was carnage, but still worth getting up in the early hours today to see.

In the end, it seemed clear Andy Roddick's biggest mistake was creating even the slightest glimmer of possibility that he might be able to defeat the best player in tennis history, Roger Federer, at the Aussie Open.

Bad mistake.

The 6-4, 6-0, 6-2 whipping Federer laid on the No. 1 American player demonstrated that the exhibition match prior to the first Grand Slam event of '07 in which Roddick actually beat Federer was in no way a reflection of the true nature of this "rivalry."

Some interesting stats:

Federer won 14 of the final 16 games.

After winning 25 points in the first set, Roddick won only 20 more.

With Roddick serving upwards of 230 km/hr, Federer nonetheless at one point won nine straight points on the American's serve.

Federer is now 47-1 in his last seven Grand Slam events.

The Swiss maestro now gets either Tommy Haas or red-hot Chilean Fernando Gonzalez in the final as he attempts to win his 10th Grand Slam title.

One more after that and he ties The Rocket, Rod Laver.

Five more and he'll pass Pete Sampras for the most all-time.

Nine more and he'll have more majors than Jack Nicklaus won in golf.

You don't have to like this sport to want to watch this player, an athlete who finds a new, higher level to reach almost every week.

On Sunday, he'll try to become the first man to win a Grand Slam event without dropping a single set since Bjorn Borg at the 1980 French Open.

Roddick, as it turned out, was just a spectator along the way, his confidence shattered by the greatness of his opponent.

Comments

[Roberto]

This guy Federer is a once in a generation athelete who is just much better than everyone else right now, and maybe ever.
We are truly lucky to be able to watch him in his prime, and I am looking forward to the French Open to see if he can beat Nadal on clay. If so, I think I would have to label him the best player in tennis history. (sorry Pete)

[Ted]

Up front I admit to being a tennis junkie but this predjudice aside, what I like about Roger is that he an excellent role model.
He works hard at staying in shape and on top of his game with little outside motivation or assistance necessary. He is not arrogant or a show boater. He is always honest, polite and modest with the press and the fans, win or lose. Yet he has a burning desire to win - and he does.

[Allen]

I'm here in Melbourne, witnessing the events as they unfold. Federer is, undoubtedly, the best to ever play the game. The array and variety of shots coming from Federer's racquet are simply remarkable. It's only a matter of time before Federer solves Nadal on clay.

There are 4 athletes who I'm very proud to say I was alive to witness their entire careers- Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Roger Federer.

[AndyC]

I agree he is awe inspiring. However, it would be great if Nadal, Murray and others could step up to give him competition over the next few seasons.
That's where the suggestion that Sampras is best ever falls short. He really only had Agassi as a serious rival and never made the French final. If he had been around in the Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl era I'm guessing his GS total would be well down
Also Laver won the Grand Slam in both 1962 and 1969. How many more titles would he have notched during his intervening, prime years if he had not been barred as a professional