Well it's 3.50AM where I'm at right now, and what is showing on TSN? Oh no, it's not Federer/Agassi, it's Serena/Amelie because that match was SO riveting it has to be seen. It is to be followed by more taped tennis after its quick completion and Federer/Agassi will presumably be shown at 2pm on Tuesday.

Damn you TSN, damn you to heck.

I set the alarm for 5 a.m. to see the final set. Sure enough, Agassi was down two sets when I got out of bed. According to Dick Enberg, "Agassi actually hasn't played bad." They had three commentators in the booth: Carillo, PMac and Enberg.

Anyone know why John McEnroe didn't go to Melbourne? I guess Jim Courier has Johnny Mac's commentating job for Aussie TV. Do we think that he was worried about his (now cancelled) CNBC show? *sigh*

I watched the whole thing. The first set was very riveting.... I thought the three in the booth did a great job - you could feel their excitement during the first set, as well.



I find this very disturbing - especially as not only is he #4, but he was the finalist last year. In fact, I've seen more snippets this year of his last year matches, than I have of this year's.

What I really dislike is that the first time ESPN shows us glimpses of people like Marat and Amelie - real threats as well as good TV - ends up being their tougher matches. There's no way Amelie is going to garner any support or interest if people only get to see matches like yesterday's.

I watched the whole match and I'm tired as hell. It really didn't live up to the hype if you ask me. Roger is so good that it's scary. At least it wasn't an Andre tongue bath like it has been in the past.

I like Sharapova a lot. Her being pretty does nothing for me since I'm gay. I think it's funny how all the other Russian ladies hate her, yet she backs up her hype by winning unlike Kournikova.

If they don't show Nalbandian, I will raise hell.

Amelie Mauresmo isn't going to get any support or interest until she starts winning the big matches. This isn't the fault of the coverage at all.

True, but I am wondering when the bloom will come off the rose. I think sometime this year people will be cheering for someone to knock him off his throne. People got sick of the Williams sisters when they were dominant, people got sick of Navratilova, Graf, etc. So it's just a matter of time.

As long as it's not that a-hole Hewitt (could I loathe a player any more!?!?), I think a rivalry would be better for men's tennis than what we have now.

There's no question about that, but I think it's a separate issue. I think - despite all the controversy over the ranking system - that she's still number 2 and that everyone will continue to think it's some horrible random fluke since we don't get to see her establishing herself in tournaments before the big matches. I really like Amelie - I like her ability to face her demons, no matter how public, and keep going after what I believe she really wants: the big break-through match at a major. And I think tennis can also be about the process of getting to these places.

My commentary is more that she's had some great matches and yet people don't know who this random woman is at #2 who has somehow maintained a higher ranking than the mighty Slam-winning Russians. There's a lot of press for them and I think it fuels a lot of the nasty commentary that we get from the likes of Brad Gilbert: "She's always injured! She can't match up! Something has got to change with the ranking system!" Pam Shriver was able to keep him in his place with some informed commentary about valuing participation and showing up more than the random win, etc. But I get nervous when that line gets perpetuated - and then backed up by the lack of consistency in her big-match play, and then no coverage of her early rounds....



Good point, jer2002! I'm trying to figure out if I really am just annoyed by Sharapova and her overexposure, or if I really don't like her play.... She seems a lot like Lleyton to me - and for all the wrong reasons. I just don't get the need for the constant dramatic self-pumping, and personally prefer the players that put that intensity back into the play.

OopsSorry, but I would argue that Sharapova (even more than Hewitt) does put that intensity back into her play. The thing she seems to have, more than any other player out there right now is she really, really wants to win, so bad. You can feel it when you watch her, and I love that. She has awesome talent and skills, but she also has nerve a steely resolve and backs her shreiks up.

Re: Mauresmo. I have to go with Brad Gilbert on this one. Why should average consistency be rewarded over big matches. It makes no sense to me that Sharapova and Kuznetsova did not finish in the top two last year, none. Sharapova having won the year end championships and the Wimbledon final was clearly the best player on tour last year, bar none. I don't blame her for having injuries, but I almost feel like Pam Shriver (who I despise) was making excuses for her. It's not really important why she's not winning big matches, lack of game, lack of nerves, bodily issues, but she's not winning them.

Compare the commentary on Mauresmo vs the commentary on Venus Williams. Williams has actually won majors and had some excellent match winning streaks. She was in a grand slam final only two years ago, and yet people like Shriver and Carillo (who I hate even more) are already digging the plot in her tennis grave. It's bogus.

Have to also chime in on the Cliff love. More than any other male commentator he really enjoys a good women's match and is really fair in his commentary. When Mary Carillo was finding every single way not to give Serena an counce of credit against Mauresmo, Cliff was there to give her props. When a men's match is boring, Cliff is there to be all "this blows." He also doesn't objectify Sharapova the way that other guy does, and I don't know who that other guy does but if I hear him say "nice serve" in a way that makes me think of the phrase "nice tits" one more time, I'm muting the screen.

But you could use your same pro-Sharapova match against Venus. I'm not sure Venus has that intensity and focus that she had (when she was consistently beating Serena for example.) And I am a Williams sisters fan and a Venus fan specifically. I love to watch Venus play.

There are two kinds of Amelie matches that TV always seems to show:

a) Totally blown out of the water (vs. Serena on multiple occasions)
b) Close match that she can't win (vs. Dementieva at last years U.S. Open).

Sadly, you build a reputation when the only image people see of you on TV are of these predicaments.

At this point, ESPN2’s schedule says that the will show the tape of the Hewitt/Nalbandian match on Wednesday at 2:00. Yeah! Nalbandian is one of my favorites (I like that he does the best with what he has) and he has a tough time with injuries for a good bit of 2004 and the recent death of his father. (Kind of similar to Blake in that regard I guess).

I think it will be interesting, since Nalbandian has said that he doesn’t think Hewitt should cheer opponents’ unforced errors. (He was responding to a question when he said that- so it wasn’t unsolicited). I know that Nalbandian has a reputation for being rude or gruff but he is actually just very honest in his interviews and just doesn’t seem to like to bull****. From what people who have met him off of court have said, he is actully a really nice guy. If you guys can, I recommend that you check him out when he appeared interview show on The Tennis Channel. He was very down to earth and pretty funny. Hewitt will be really fired up for the match, as the crowd will – and so it should be fun to see.

Also looking forward to the Davenport/Molic match. I’d be happy with either of them winning the finals. Then Serena and then Maria.

Do you think when Safin plays Federer they will show more than 10 minutes of Safin? Poor, neglected, sexy Safin. And he is playing good in the tournament (although he needs to work on taking advantage of his break point chances.)

I agree with you here but Venus will always get scheduling preference because she's the American player, Mauresmo is not. If Sharapova were hot and losing, she wouldnt be getting any exposure, but she's hot and winning. And I do think it is interesting that the women who's matches they have closely followed in this tournament, Davenport, Serena, Sharapova in particular, are the women who are in the semifinals.

As for Safin, I'm pissed they are not showing any of his matches this year, because a: he's a hottie and b: he's a hottie. But last year they showed a ton of his matches and they did that because he was having these amazing 5 set battles. Safin's the kind of egomaniac who won't be intimidated by Federer so this will be an awesome match.

I saw the show where they followed him around as he shopped and bungee-jumped. He seemed like a really fun guy. And he is one player that doesn't usually get riled by native fans whooping it up. I will be avoiding the news and watching the tape tomorrow afternoon.

And this is where we may have to just disagree, because this makes no sense to me - mostly because I don't really know how you would do it. There were 4 different Slam winners last year - which is, in fact, the biggest factor in the Mauresmo ranking. She consistently made it pretty far and then managed to show up (in big matches and not) around the tour. For Sharapova and Kuznetzova to be one and two, those two tourneys would have to get the highest ranking. What would you make of Myskina? She won a slam and got no coverage. Granted, as you note, she also didn't make it to the semis. But what kind of criteria separates these women for ESPN?

For me the best analogy is with the men. I was pretty happy for Gaudio's dramatic and unpredictable run at the French, but didn't really think it put him ahead of the other consistent contenders with Federer for the other Slams. It would have been frustrating to see him surpass them, when the rest of his play was so erratic. Good on him, really - but is it an accurate ranking to place him ahead of Roddick who didn't win any? Or Hewitt? Or even Agassi?

And I have to chime in with Juanita on the Venus comment. She hasn't been so into it. And she hasn't been doing too well, but we saw her. Mauresmo's done a LOT more than Venus (for understandable reasons) and yet we saw nothing. I think most of us would agree that being American comes first in ESPN's priorities, but then there are these other oddities that are hard to figure out. I agree that Sharapova puts her intensity back into the match (as does Lleyton), but for me it's much more compelling when it isn't announced so constantly. I love the focus, the ambition, but my personal taste goes for those who dig back in quietly. It just feels sometimes as though it's for the audience's benefit. It's clearly not hurting them, and there are perhaps many who would benefit from more vocalizing, but if I were a player I would fear more those like Serena and Roger who do it only pointedly on specific occasions, more to and for themselves.

My goodness. Was that me? It sure seems like I wrote this.



Oh. That wasn't me. And here's why. I personally didn't like Serena for a very long time because of her histrionics. That's one of the reasons I've always preferred Venus. I'm a sucker for the quiet type. And the two players that annoy me the most? Hewitt and Sharapova. I loathe them both.

But there's a difference. Sharapova's game is more attractive to me than Hewitt's because she has a more attacking style, and I like that. But I like Hewitt's personality off the court better than Sharapova's. Sharapova seems extremely disingeneous to me, and her father is not helping her cause. Plus I really dislike all the overexposure.



I don't think so. Remember Kournikova?

Not surprisingly, I'm with OopsSorry on the Amelie issue. No one rose to the ocassion consistently on the Slams, so overall consistency was rewarded. Ergo Davenport and Mauresmo as #1 and #2. I don't think that you could do it any other way.

And I find it kind of terrible that all of these questions are raised about Mauresmo and the wrongness of the ranking system is brought up, but that doesn't happen with Davenport who happened to finish the year as #1 without winning a Slam. Granted, she had won 3 before, but that was a long time ago. I'd like the ranking system to be discussed in the same way when Davenport's ranking is mentioned, thank you very much. She got injured in the semis at the US Open. She couldn't defeat a 17 year old at Wimbledon. She was beaten by Dementieva and her weak serve at the French.

If you'd ask me, I'd say it smells jingoistic.



I think this has already happened. I don't think he's been a crowd favorite anywhere except in Basel and Gstaad in the past year and a half.

But Lindsay won the US Open Series, which was a points factor for the first time last year. Essentially, she was the U.S. hardcourt season champion in 2004 and that made for a ton of points.

I don't know a lot about the WTA's ranking system but I know ATP. You can be king of the ATP by winning the Masters Series tournaments, for example. I have to believe that Serena's and Venus' selective tournament playing impacts their ranking. Serena was protected due to her injury for much of the season.

But Mauresmo wasn't far behind, having won the Canada Tier I event. I don't think the hardcourt season had more points this year than any other year, right? Didn't it just increase your prize money depending on how you did at the US Open?



Yep. That's basically how Marcelo Rios became number one.



Their lack of tournaments really hurts their ranking. Even when they were both routinely getting to GS finals, Clijsters was incredibly close to them because she was consistently winning tier 1 and tier 2 events that the sisters didn't play, making the semis or better of the GS events, and won the year end championships in 2002. I remember that Serena needed to win Wimbledon in 2003 to remain number 1. Otherwise, Clijsters would've overtaken her right then and there.

I don't know. I think tennis fans are really into seeing him play. It's just so beautiful. I think of it more as a Sampras situation. Unless he is playing someone the fan wants to win, the fan is fine with him winning.

I really wish I had known they were going to show the Federer v. Agassi match in the early morning. I (oh boy, do I hate to say this) hope they did show the taped match at 2pm 'cause I TiVo'ed it and want to watch it (even if it wasn't so great) when I get home. And, dang it all, it looks like I'm not going to get my dream doubles match-up. Oh well, it wouldn't have been shown anyway.


Man, remember that? Weak time right there.

And yes, the US Open Series did not garner additional points, just additional money. It was a tv ploy to get more people watching matches on CBS, ESPN and the Tennis Channel but, because the different networks weren't willing to promote the other networks, it kinda failed.

Also, playing a lot or a little only matters in how you do. If you only play 14 tournaments then the points from those 14 tournaments all count. If you play 21 tournaments your best 14 results count. (I think it is still 14, I haven't really been paying attention to the rankings since this crazy current-year rankings thing.)

According to the USTA, there were Masters Series-level points involved in the U.S. Open Series:So I think it was significant for Lindsay.

See what happens when I stop paying attention! Yeesh, I've gotta start again.

Oh, and Juanita, thanks for the grammar correction on "exes." Heh, oops.

Heh, jimena. I know what you mean. For the heat of their competitive years, I felt the same way. But I find her really kind of digging in as of late. This is very recent, by the way. Maybe the seriousness of family events? Don't know.

Anyway,


Can personally attest to the latter, because I was there! [/fangirling...]

Jesus Christ, I can't take it anymore. Why is Pam Shriver taking every single opportunity to hate on Venus during the coverage of this otherwise entertaining quarterfinal match. When comparing the percentage of points Molik has won on her first and second serve Shriver said "That just shows that Davenport can return the ball better than most any player....especially Venus Williams." Shut UP Pam, ugh.

Hmm. Interesting. I didn't know that. But playing devil's advocate for a while, didn't Mauresmo win the clay Tier 1's prior to RG? It might have made a difference for Davenport in the end, but it still doesn't answer why the ranking system is slammed using Mauresmo as an example and not Davenport... They had very similar results last year.



I'm soooooo envious.

Was Pete Sampras as dominant as Federer in his day? Federer looks like he doesn't even struggle. It is the scariest thing that I've ever seen.

I also wonder if people spoke about Sampras' ability in the glowing terms used to describe Federer's. I was too young to really remember.

What kills me is that I remember when Federer bombed out of Wimbledon a few years ago the Mac brothers were dissing him from here to there saying he will "never live up to his potential." Talking about how he has this "natural talent" that he has not matured into the player he should've. And then I just found out the guy is what, 23? You would think he was 28 or 29 the way they were talking about him.

So I do remember the former pros have had their eye on Federer for a long time.

I was obsessed with Agassi in the late 80s (I know that shocks everyone here) so I didn't pay much attention to Sampras. For as long as I've been watching tennis as an adult (versus my teen years), I remember Sampras being the greatest of all time. Or was that Gretzky? Hah! What I remember of Sampras' playing was always: Ace. Ace. Ace. Ace. Opponent's game. Ace. Ace. Ace. Ace. Opponent's game. Just kidding. Obviously if my fave player is the best returner, there's a certain style of tennis I prefer watching (Joachim Johansson, I'm looking at you.)

WOW! Is it too much to hope that the Hewitt/Nalbandian match will be aired in its entirety? Probably. As I posted earlier, I'm a Hewitt fan from way back. But just as I was tiring of his antics at the Open (which would have been a first for me), he goes out wins first the match against Nadal and then the quarter-final match against Nalbandian. Given the pressure he's under, the hip problem and the amount of time he's already been on court (14hrs so far). He now has nothing but respect from me for his game and his sheer will to win.

I think it was pretty much a 50-50 love-hate with Pete. I think because his game was "all jock, no-frills" tennis, purists didn't appreciate the fact that Pete could serve his way out of anything. He wasn't even really the best volleyer (Rafter, even Henman), baseliner (Agassi), or mover (Hewitt) around the court, but he was definitely very good in these three areas combined together.

I think his general apathy towards even the non-Grand Slam tournaments also created some hate, but he understands that you create your legacy from winning Grand Slams, not some Masters Series tournament.

back to ESPN, Pam Shriver tries WAY too hard to create drama/tension during the match - Davenport-Molik was Exhibit A. As for Dick Enberg - man this guy never takes a break from sports broadcasting - he's kwazy!

While Sampras always received huge accolades for his abilities, I do recall that many tennis analysts found him boring. The bottom line with Sampras is that he was never a fan favorite like Agassi.

I remember in 1998 when Rafter beat him in a hard-court tournament prior to the US Open, Pete openly complained about US fans supporting Rafter. Personally, I always felt that Sampras was jealous of how popular Patrick became after winning back to back US Opens.

Pat Rafter was popular because he always seems like a genuninely nice guy, and he's hot. I wish he was still playing.

I was a bit taken aback last night when Pam Shriver mentioned that "her husband" is an Australian. Somehow I never realized that Pam was married.

I read this in the AP article:


Since I forgot to TiVo this match, did anyone see it? Did ESPN show this incident?

Hewitt just bugs me more and more.

And to a former 007! George Lazenby, I believe.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlisting...leWeek?sport=TN

ESPN2 will show the Hewitt/Roddick semi live, but not the Federer/Safin one. Grrrrr. I hate that.



I think he was just pissed off that people were talking about how great Rafter was and what Sampras needed to do to compete with him, when Sampras wasn't over yet, and had a much better record than Rafter.

But yes, Rafter was a truly nice guy, and very very very hot.

Pam Shriver is indeed married. Her first husband died from cancer but she remarried.

Like Mary Joe Fernandez, Pam had a baby last year.

ETA: Patrick Rafter is hot. (Just for consistency's sake, I felt it was needed.)

Rafter was such a likeable player. I always appreciated how gracious he was in victory and in defeat. When he was nearing retirement I was really hoping that Hewitt would be the next Aussie tennis player I would root for. Alas, his asshat behavior put a damper on my plans. Unfortunately, his skills on the court do little to counter his poor conduct and abrasiveness.

As for ESPN, I'm continually bothered by the lack of coverage for non-American players. I've been a tennis fan for over 20 years and have never rooted for a player based on nationality.

P.S. Oh, yes, Patrick Rafter is one beautiful man.

And she remarried a really old guy - he's 65 and she's 42.

Even worse was during the 1998 U.S. Open semi-final, when despite having been a 4-time former champion, half the U.S. crowd was pulling for defending champion Rafter over Sampras. I wouldn't think things like that could irk a champion like Pete, especially at that point in his career - but I guess even the great ones feel the dents in the armour ego sometimes.

Damn! I'm watching Hewitt/Nalbandian and they just said they're showing Federer/Safin tomorrow afternoon. Not live?!!!! Do you think if we bombard them with emails or calls or something they might change their minds?

Also it just occurred to me that if we want to see the final live, we should probably root for Roddick to make it. (Or maybe it's already scheduled to be live. Did I miss that? I hope I did.)



It was glowing, but not on the same plane.

Sampras probably had the greatest serve ever. It wasn't totally aces, aces like Ivanisavic or Roddick et al (although he had his share, especially at Wimbledon). But he would dominate with it. He had amazing disguise, control, variety of spin and an unmatched second serve.

And he backed up the serve with "game" that was out the wazoo. Great, great forehand, excellent backhand. Great movement and agility. Superb volleys and touch. Awesome, awesome overhead and jumping ability. And just stellar competitiveness. He had tons of different shots. He returned really well and played a fantastic power game from the baseline.

Announcers were ga-ga about his game. They would often lament that fans couldn't warm to him and hoped that they appreciated that they were watching one of the best, if not the best, ever.

But then along came ...
[Soprano Solo] Roger [/Soprano Solo]
[Chorus of Angels]Federer[/Chorus of Angels]

The reaction to him is like nothing I've ever seen or heard. It's off the charts, even compared to the great Sampras. Jaws drop. People are without words. They shake their heads and laugh. When he's just annihilated the player they've been rooting for, crowds give him standing ovations for the beauty they've just witnessed. There are reports of players in the players' lounge gathered around TV sets watching him play. Saying to him in the lounge when they're showing replays of his matches, "Come here, Roger. They're showing that shot again! How did you do it?" It's just different. It's like people have never seen tennis played as well as this.

No. You know what it is. It's that we've never even imagined tennis could be played as well.

Hyperbole, yes. But that's all you're left with when it comes to him.

It's already happening. But somehow I don't think it's going to make a difference. Which is too bad, because only hard core tennis fans are going to be watching live tennis at that hour. If they're going to watch Roddick/Hewitt, they'll probably watch Federer/Safin.



I don't think anything has been said about this. For now, it's going to be tape delayed.



Hee hee hee!

I fear you're right. Though I have to say that I'm half-delusional that it will just happen - that ChestyLaRue will post here in a few hours and say that they just pre-empted 3 hours of "Strongest Man", parts 1-6, and are going to show it live....

Because I checked this morning before coming up to work, and that was pretty much what was scheduled for those all-too-precious hours between 2:30 and 5:30.

C'mon ESPN! You did right by us on Tuesday morning! Come through tonight! Please!

I was thinking about tonight's match and remembering last year's. I just remember how wiped out Marat was - and how out of it he seemed to feel. Anyone remember Roger needing to help him remember to switch courts for his next serve? At that point I would have never imagined to see him back for the semis a year later. It's pretty impressive.

And this?


Just makes me happy!

Fuck you Lleyton Hewitt! And fuck Australian TV for all those shots of his snobby family in his players box. HATE.

Oh Castallack! I'm so sorry. As you know, I really like Nalbandian, but now I love him. Since I was traveling I wasn't spoiled, and didn't get home until the beginning of the 5th set (and imagine my shock to have ESPN2 go over their scheduled time by and hour and a half for no American player!) and oh my god. That was incredible. My heart is racing.


Yes, yes and more yes. I'm actually really sad that people are starting to forget already just how great Sampras was. How many times did we all hear Laver-like when people spoke of him? We're not about to forget Laver, so why Sampras? I wish Pete kept his face in the game now that he is retired, maybe that would help. The only journalists who didn't love Sampras were the ones who didn't like that he didn't give them good soundbites. He let his playing speak for him so brilliantly--and I'm speaking as someone who wasn't a Sampras fan until he started losing. 14 majors, and many of those years had much stronger fields than we've seen in recent years. I'm going to remember the jumping and overhead the most.

Oh, Brad and Chris were on ESPN News Tuesday night talking about the rest of the matches (at that point, semis in the top half, quarters in the bottom) and Brad opined that only Safin "of the remaining six" could have any chance of beating Federer. Unlike with his eight years with Andre, Brad seems to be distancing himself from Roddick. Interesting.

What a great quarter between Hewitt and Nalbandian. So glad to see David come back when it looked like he would be wiped out in 3 quick sets to take it too a five setter. Too bad someone had to lose. And even though Nalby lost the match- I think that this match bodes well for a good 2005 for him. It was funny how there was some tension between Lleyton and David (loved Cliff and Mary joking about it) but they had a good classy handshake at the end. On a shallow note, even though he is stocky, needs a hair trim and is usually really sweaty, I find Nalby to be quite attractive. (He does have beautiful blue green eyes)

OoopsSorry- I wish I could post that they have ESPN is replacing World’s Strongest man with an actual live tennis semifinal between two awesome tennis talents, but alas, no word yet. I’m going to keep an eye for the scroll at the bottom of the screen during tonight’s coverage to see if they have changed the schedule.

Per this article, ESPN may consider airing the men's final live and then showing a taped presentation Sun at noon. Let’s just cross our fingers that they change their mind to show the final live. Some good news- ratings for the Aussie Open are up 25% over last year. Yea!

Here’s some ESPN contact info that someone posted on MTF if you want to contact ESPN about showing the semis/final live



Well- for the first time in a long while I will be rooting for Serena tonight. I think she has a good chance.

Federer is awesome. The best since Sampras. But I will not say he's better than Sampras - not yet, anyway. And anyone else who does might want to check this site out first.

Granted, if Roger can win all four Grand Slams in a year (big if - he's not so good at Roland Garros), then we can have the conversation. But the thing is this - by just about every statistic, Pete was clearly better than Roger at the same point in their careers.

I don't think that's true. It was common knowledge in tennis circles that, despite his public perception as a 'classy guy', Sampras was difficult to deal with. I have it on good authority that he was well known for treating tournament officials and even ballkids with a great deal of disdain. Some journalists may have found it difficult to heap glowing praise on him despite his great tennis skill. On the other hand, I have heard nothing but good things about Federer. He is apparently a genuinely nice guy. That probably influences how the writers who have to deal with these players on a regular basis assess him.

According to Tennis magazine, ESPN will show tennis from noon to 2 p.m. on Sunday, Jan. 30. Tape delay according to the magazine. They are live from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Friday though. No Saturday coverage noted, which confuses me because of the time difference. I dunno.

I just love this so much. I hope I see news accounts like this in the tennis press. Harry thanks for posting it!

ot: 70 pages! I'm so proud of us! We sure kicked it into high gear for this Slam! /ot

I'm a little confused- are you saying that the only way that Federer will be able to be considered better than Sampras is if he wins a Grand Slam? (I'm not trying to be snotty- I seriously am uncertain as to what you were saying.)

And Federer is still possibly in his ascendency- so I'm not sure if it is really far to rate who is better based on the site that you posted. Roger started to reach his prime later than Sampras- but I don't know if that means he is automatically inferior. Yes- Sampras has accomplished more than Roger by the time he was Roger's age. But I don't think that that means that Roger's current skills and streaks (and dominance) should not be lauded just because he got into his groove later than Pete did.)

Sampras may have some better statistics- but I have to say that having seen both of them play when they were dominant, Federer is better at making shots out of nothing and does have such a natural movement on court. And Federer's serve is becomming more and more a major weapon (his is most about placement).

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I like Pete and think he was awesome. But there are some things that simple statistics can't measure - and one must keep in mind that players can peak at different ages- look at Alicia Molik- she is reaching her prime later than most of the women on the circuit. And even with statistics- Feds is certainly not done with his career and will very most likely improve in his career statistical categoreis. I'm not saying that Roger is better than Pete was- but at the same time I am saying that Roger is not necessarily inferior to Pete just because he started late.

But outside of statistics and all of that- I think one reason why people are so in awe of Federer is that he plays tennis in such a natural, graceful, organic way almost as if this is what exactly his body was created to do. As my grandma says about Feds, he looks as if he was born to play tennis in a way that very few in the history of tennis have. In that regards- he is truly special.

Yes, but Pete reached his peak form faster than Federer. It took Roger a while to make all of his gifts work him in high stakes matches.

I think that Pete was a phenomenal player. I was one of his hardcore fans. But I think that he was an athlete first, and a tennis player second, whereas for me Roger was made to play tennis. Yes, he's a great athlete obviously and probably could've excelled in other sports (notably soccer). But his athletic gifts are almost a perfect match to the sport he chose to play. That doesn't happen too often.

Whether he'll have a career as good as Sampras' is another story. But in terms of talent to play tennis, I'd go with Roger all the way. And I LOVED Pete.

Sorry - that's not what I meant. Should've been clearer.

If Federer keeps improving, he will be better than Pete was soon. Personally, I think he's still not quite at the same level as Pete was (but he's very close).

I definitely think Federer should be lauded for his dominance, regardless of when it began - but it's one thing to laud the man and another to say he's better than, arguably, the best player in the history of the game.

All I was saying was that comparisons to Pete are certainly justified - but it's far from clear that Federer has surpassed Sampras at this point. Doesn't mean he won't. Doesn't mean I don't think he will. Just means he hasn't done it yet.

(And yes, I am a huge Sampras fan)

Dudes. I don't think I've ever rooted for Serena more in my life. GO GO GO GO GO Serena!

I CAN NOT believe that Serena was robbed of that break point. Man, she has gotten the short end of the stick a bit in the last year or so.

I am tired of Sharapova's screeching- it made my dog leave the room- and I am annoyed that she broke Serena.

I am also annoyed that Mary Carillo keeps harping on the fact that she thinks that Serena is in decline.