Comments on: 150,000 Reasons Why Roger Federer Won the Australian Open

By: jnowlan828

jnowlan828 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:40:19 +0000

And another thing, you cannot hold a set point at 6-6 in a tiebreak.

By: jnowlan828

jnowlan828 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:39:18 +0000

May I apply for the position of editor here?

Firstly, you misspelled Baryshnikov.
Secondly, the singular form of Scotsmen is ScotsMAN.
Thirdly (and most importantly as it is misinformation and not just misspelling), Murray beat Nadal in 2+ sets not 4.

Mr. Simmons it appears that you, too, are a poor historian. Please tighten up your writing.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:17:02 +0000

I’ve been watching tennis since before the pro tour came into existence and I have seen some great players and they were the greatest of their era. Roger Federer ,who I dismissedwhen younger as a talented player with every shot but not the discipline to pick them at the right time ,is compelling to watch because of the way he gains control of a match and his ability to vary his game. Predictably he is now being dismissed as having too high opinion of himself, not giving his opponents enough credit and various other media offenses. Great champions should have enormous confidence in their abilities and he tried to turn the mike to Murray so he could addressing him directly and as the only guy on the tour who is not nursing some injury no wonder he feels on top of the world. Who wouldn’t?

By: fedfan

fedfan — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:19:11 +0000

Congratulations, Roger! What a difference a year makes, huh? I hope you keep healthy and play for many more years.

By: KING ARTHUR USA

KING ARTHUR USA — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:48:11 +0000

Murray had chances today but he relies on his opponents making unforced errors . His forehand, he leans back, resulting in a short ball or a ball hit out. Being a counter puncher will always result in a reactive rather than proactive approach to his game.

‘If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got.

Murray has a entourage that supports him. These forfeits they play and hand out in training, has got him to a final but I do not see a improvement in his game. Running around a track does not help one’s mind or strategy on the court. Staying so far back behind the court waiting. No one can out run a tennis ball.

Murray’s body could break down too, he was feeling his hip and thigh. There is only so much the body can take. Look at Nadal.

Federer played well but Murray should have taken the second and third set. Wrong tactics, but can Murray learn to change his game. He has the ability. Tough to change when he is so close but that is the key, getting closer but it is an illusion. He lost. There are other guys coming up and time is moving on

Murray games is spoiling. When I spoke to Mats Wilander, the great baseliner and asked about his US Open win in 1988 and why he volleyed at crucial times in the match, he said ‘I bluffed it against Lendl l served and volleyed. Murray did not take the initiative at the decisive moment. To win a major the winners will execute this. Murray did not.

Federer the greatest………ask Nadal who is 6 and 2 in majors against him.

Rediculous, Champions are great in any era stupid to compare.

As for winning world war two, ! thought America helped Bgreat Britains with materials and loans. Murray should make his base in America and get that ” have ago , roll the dice mentality’