As expected, the phenom Roger Federer won the title.
He played the final against Gonzalez, at the start it was a tie game and Federer won taught the first set.
At next, he step up and won the last 2 sets.
Federer now won 10 Grand Slams, and we will see if he can break the 14 record of Sampras.
I saw part of Roddick - Federer game. Roddick wasn't at his best. His serve wasn't working and he wasn't able to produce many winners. Part of this was because of Federer's "killing" game. It's too hard for a player to know that he must always press Federer. When trying to stay in the game he probably fails several points and Federer is just too solid to not concede easy points. And Federer's talent does the rest.
Roddick has potential to be number 2 but the number one seems to be impossible to reach. Federer has just too many resources.
Federer-Roddick was one of those games tennis fans were amazed by Federer's crushing game.
I think Federer will win Roland Garros. Nadal had some luck last year at Roland Garros (Federer started well but then slowed down his performance). Federer must though be more precise than in last year's game. Nadal will try again to undermine Federer's confidence (specially left handed strokes). If Federer plays like he did at Melbourne against Roddick, Nadal will have no chances. Everything just worked out.
I think Federer is the best player ever. Sampras was very good but Federer is as good in hard courts and better in clay courts.
The 14 record will probably be beaten.
Roger is definetely the best player at the moment, but noone can tell that he's the best player in history...It's just not fair to claim that one man is best in a sport with such a long history...I like Roger a lot, but I also like Sampras and Borg etc...
I just want him to win the French Open even if he doesnt win anything else ever. That will truly show that he is the best allround player in the Open Era.
Federer is truly in a separate class right now, he is untouchable.
Rod Laver made a funny comment , "The only way to beat him is to whack him on the head with a tennis racquet" lol.
He's so untouchable, he's making tennis boring. You assume he wins.
If you think he makes tennis boring then you probably didn't enjoy it that much in the first place.
Just look at his shots! Look at how perfectly he can aim the ball, how he keeps his eye on the ball at ALL times, how calm he is whether he's about to lose the match or win the match and the totally impossible shots he does with total ease.
They call him a magician for a reason.
Federer is for tennis what Michael Jordan was for basketball. He just does everything with ease. I've never seen any player capable of that, call him Sampras, Becker, Edberg (brilliant specially in hard-courts). I think the best game to watch would have been: Agassi - Federer. Agassi was like Federer: solid and talented, with a diverse way of playing, capable to defy every kind of play.
Sampras had a weakness in his left strokes. He sliced a lot with his left hand giving initiative to the other player. This caused several lost games by him. Federer has more resources (left-hand, better touch with the ball).
I can't though talk about Borg, McEnroe, Rod Laver, Connors, Villas, Mecir, Lendl, or other legends. Those were other times, and as Stojanovic says, I can't really say that Federer is the best player ever.
But in modern tennis (since about 1987) Federer just rules. And Agassi takes the silver medal.
If you talk about speed precision killing game at hard-courts, Pistol Pete takes gold. And Goran Ivanisevic is the best if we talk about serving.