End of an era (maybe) 7/07/2008 08:51
The morning we left from our atlantic city vacation house, we got to watch part of the 2008 Wimbledon final.

Roger Federer was persistent and painstaken, but Rafeal Nadal was just brilliant. By the time we left, Nadal won the first two set without much drama. Later I learned that Federer put up a respectable fight and won the next two set, then eventually lost 7:9 in the fifth set.

Many would compare Federer to Sampras. They have similar physiques and style, they both turned pro at 17, they both suck on clay, and at times they both can be boring to watch but still get the most important thing (winning) done. So people probably would compare this game to the 2001 Wimbledon, where young Federer defeated defending champion Sampras and effectively ended the Sampras SAGA. The only difference here is that Sampras reigned for more than 7 years, Federer reigned for 5 years so far. Sampras was 30 in 2001, Federer is (almost) 27 now.

In this evolving world, your glory is becoming history at a record high speed.

This must be hard to swallow for a still young Federer. And Nadal is no Sampras or Federer, he is more of an Agassi. Can Federer get back to his game? Would the "interesting" player default on his own behalf?

This definitely will be interesting to follow up.
federer didn't win wimbledon in 2001 although he defeated samprass in that tounament and grab public's attention.

wimbledon 2001 winner was a wild card:
http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/2001.html
genie at 7/07/2008 10:22 快速引用
genie :
federer didn't win wimbledon in 2001 although he defeated samprass in that tounament and grab public's attention.

wimbledon 2001 winner was a wild card:
http://aeltc.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/2001.html


Thanks for pointing that out.

Changed it just now.
aurora at 7/07/2008 12:02 快速引用
[Time : 0.006s | 11 Queries | Memory Usage: 629.59 KB]