stop watching then and get out...

But but but - he's so beautiful! How can you not enjoy such a remarkable display of tennis.

Yeah...stop watching and get out! Roger is the best!

I, too, have turned my attention from the men's game to the women's game during the reign of Darth Federer. The current women's field is so wide open that it looks like 2002 again, with the Williams sisters remarkably able to sift through heavy Russian competitors to face each other in the Final.

I do see some hope that I have not seen since Andy won his first and only Slam in 2003. His performance at Wimbledon was so inspired that it is fair to say his 'mojo' is back. Remember those American Express ads from 2005? The sad reality is that Roddick did lose some edge after '05, but Sunday's performance gives me hope that he is back in top form. A rejuvenated Roddick and a steady Nadal will help level the men's playing field again.

I'm sorry, but IMHO, yesterday's match was the greatest ever played. To see Roddick never be broken on serve and then to watch him blast 133 mph serves 77 games into the match, I think it's fair to say: He.Is.Back.

PS--I'll be blowing my Wimbledon fund again this year--at the Rogers Cup in Montreal.

This editorial or whine-fest or whatever is an exercise in self-indulgent idiocy. If you didn't even watch the final this year, how can you even comment on it? Are you saying that you knew beforehand who would win a match that was ultimately decided 16-14 in the fifth set?
Please, someone, save Internet readers from the inane blabberings of Nancy Johnston.

Frankly I'm more interested in Federer winning the U.S. Open and pulling a summer sweep.

Watching Roger Federer play tennis is like watching Fred Astaire dance or Rosa Ponselle sing. There's an aristocratic beauty to his game we mortals can only admire, never attain.

And your point is akin to saying you wouldn't watch the late '90s Bulls play because you knew Michael Jordan was going to win another title. It's not THAT he was going to win but HOW he was going to win.

A true tennis fan would appreciate the beauty of his game, the incredible talent behind his longevity, the grace and decency he has brought to the game.
Boring? Really. Maybe you should scrap that "Wimbledon fund" for something you actually understand.

......"How can we be sure that the traditionally............ esearch and development dollars into the perfect bionic tennis player".......hahahaha...lol.....well said...might be a possibility though.....

I'm no fan of today's baseline tennis per se (I still miss the net play of McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, etc.), but if you can't appreciate a player playing at a level that, when equaled, leads to the absorbing play of last year's or this year's Wimbledon...I don't know what to say. Try some David Foster Wallace and see if that helps any:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all

As for this year's US Open, I'll be pulling for Roddick v.2.0, ideally winning in 5 against Federer.

For a potential breakthrough, I'd like to see Sam Querrey or Ernests Gulbis move up a level. I don't even know if Devin Britton will be in the main draw, but in the long run he might be someone else to watch.

I'm sorry but I don't think this year's Wimbledon final can top last year's for sheer quality of play. I agree that it was a fascinating match and Roddick played the best tennis he's ever played but serving bombs and such quick rallies don't make for very good tennis to watch. When rafa played Fed last year, the shot making was outstanding, the angles, the variety, the rallies. And if you think of what was at stake for both players (the 5th straight title or becoming the first person to win the double AND dethroning Fed finally after 2 earlier attempts), it was just way up there.

Also, let's not forget that it was an upset. Rafa wasn't the favourite going in.

Yesterday, in the end, the tournament favourite one. And Roddick lost the match rather than Federer winning it. He gave away the 2nd set tiebreak and the final game.

All reasons why the 2008 final was a more amazing and historic match.

How can you be a journalist with so little sense of history? Did you not watch the historic presidential election returns because the polls showed Obama was going to win? Please, in the future, spare us from your inane blatherings on tennis -- or any other subject, for that matter.

stupid article. don't let the door hit you on the way out.

this has to be the most juvenile article that has ever been written
we, tennis fans, admire both the sport and the players, and roger is a credit to the game.
judging from your "article", you know nothing about the beauty of tennis
so please, stop posting these articles and save us from your idiotic blabbering.

Wake up dear... in the first place if you're going to write about professional tennis, and comment about the players, have the courtesy to watch the match concerned..where is your journalistic integrity. Bored? you shouldn't be writing about it then.

If you have been following Roger and tennis as you imply - enough to get bored, then you will have realised the match on Sunday just opened up a whole new field of possibilities with Andy Roddick back, and better then before.

Roger used to dominate in his wins, winning effortlessly and some would say boringly (not me cos i am a roger fan!) but now he has to win some ugly using grit and determination besides his sublime tennis gifts.

The US Open is going to be as so much to look forward to with all the resurgent players coming into the mix!

Enjoy dear, or stop watching..or at least stop writing. cheers.

You're an idiot

StephM,
You are a condescending tennis spectator. Anonymous you are an insomniac and a grouch. La Chica lighten up. Hungry eyes I know you are making an analogy but the world doesn't begin and end with Obama. May be Nancy didn't follow the historic presidential race every step of the way either. I am not an apologist for Nancy but she has every right to blog that Federer is a cold as Alps unflappable Swiss yawn and with him tennis is more predictable and less exciting. Roddick has played this Swiss tennis giant and has proved Nancy wrong. Hopefully she will learn a lesson and sit down to watch some of these newer matches rather than waxing poetic about the good old days of hard to call matches being worthier than the current fare. But none of you has addressed her premise: Were tennis matches of the past--during the time of Sampras and Agassi-- far more exciting than the ones being played now? Does knowing who's going to win take away from the edginess of watching a match? Please discount Federer versus Roddick. bwoods and pudding--great posts. You know your tennis.

Long live Roger Federer!!! I disliked the article as many of the others offering comments did, but I liked Nancy's inquiry about those who will break through this year. Frankly, nobody will break through at the U.S. Open. In 2010, I fully expect Ernests Gulbis to put his mind right and bag some titles. Give him until 2012 to claim a major, likely the Australian Open.

"To me, tennis was at its most sublime about 10 years ago, when you were never quite sure who would come out on top: Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Rafter (whose autographed picture is a highlight in my dining room) or even an upstart such as Roddick or James Blake. "

That paragraph gave away your nationality, 10 years ago Sampras was doing what Roger was doing now (only less pretty), you had no problem what Sampras serve his way to 14 majors but Roger dominating artistically was bad?

I only played tennis for a couple of years when I was young, but I can still sppreciate the ways he plays and moves around the court.

To say its boring is retarded.

Watch as much of him play as you can...he won't last forever... and it will be a while before there is someone who is so elegant and yet wins majors like there's no tomorrow

Well, I guess tennis fans aren't allowed opinions these days! Because someone doesn't like Federer or his game, doesn't mean they don't know tennis. That would be the ignorant statement, not what Nancy was saying in this OPINION piece!! I'm of the same mindset as Nancy. I grew up watching (and loving) Agassi and Sampras. Yes, I'm American. Yes, I love my American tennis, and the state of men's tennis in the USA is not looking good. I loved Sampras growing up, but what he did is very different from what Federer has done or is doing.

Pete was winning in an era where even the most casual sports fan could rattle off the names of at least 5-10 tennis players. Today, the casual sports fan could probably name about two or three, max. I think that's because more people were watching tennis because the quality of play was much higher. There was much more parity in tennis back in the early 90s than there is today. People get sick of the same person winning all the time. Plus, Federer doesn't have much of a personality, so some may find it hard to pull for him. Sometimes it's hard to dislike the people who win all the time when they have great personas, like the Williams sisters.

I'm not going to apologize because I prefer to root for American players over foreign players. I, too, think Federer is boring, and I was rooting my butt off for Andy on Sunday morning. It was an amazing match, but like pudding said, Roddick lost that match, Federer did not win it.

Personally, I'm hoping that Andy can keep his momentum rolling from this match into the US Open hard court series and finally into the Open at the end of the summer. I'd also be happy if Blake started to pick up his game. Hopefully, the US can get some more talent in the men's side of the draw.

Ah, sorry no one appreciates irony anymore. Yup my reply was condescending to match Nancy's condescending attitude in her article,,,but hey will try to be less subtle next time:) am not here to start any online wars.

I am very Roger centric just like lots of others are very American centric or Murray centric or Rafa centric...think its great everyone sticks up for their own favorites, but no need to run everyone else down in process.

I loved the Sampas Agassi era as i was/am still very much an Agassi fan. But i am rooting for Roddick to come out guns blazing in the US Open...roll on end of Aug!

Well, yes, everyone has their opinion, but I just wanted to write to say I disagree 100% with this article (so I can have my opinion too). I am an American, I loved Pete but Roger is THE MAN. I was rooting for Roger to make history and he did. People say Roddick lost/Roger didn't win - but HISTORY will say Roger won his 15th grand slam. That's good enough for me. You so whatever it takes to win. Roger had over 100 winners in that match. He out-aced the serving machine with 50 aces! Just fantastic! So congratulations Roger.

Just 2 months earlier, many folks were writing Roger off, saying he was done, doomed, not going to even get to Pete's record. He needed to retire; the young guns were running him away, etc. Goes to show what heart Roger has and what talent he has that he has completely tuned that around and won the so-called almost impossible double that Rafa did last year - winning the French and Wimbledon.

I contratulate Roddick for his great run, but come US Open time, I will be rooting really hard for Roger to make it 6 consecutive titles!

Go Roger!