People saying that this is an average set or that Roddick played bad... Look at Federer stats at the endof the video: 0 Double faluts, 1 unforced error the entire set, 11 winners, 100% net points won AND 100% break points won against a huge server. What else do you want?
We can all talk about win/loss records with Federer and Nadal. But i still think Federer is the greatest of all time, I'll give you a few reasons why... 1. In my eyes, he is the only player that makes the game look easy. Every shot he plays is stunning to watch! Beautiful one hand backhand, powerful forehand, he has every shot in the game. 2. 17 Grand slams (Still unbeaten) 3. Such a cool bastard....
4. doesn't pull his trousers out of his ass every 5 seconds 5. doesn't try to buy time 6. doesn't fake injuries when he's losing 7. doesn't get coaching during points 8. is much more likely to be clean than Robocop 9. doesn't grunt
GuntherL1 7. doesn't get coached by uncle toni during the match 8. doesn't grunt like a gorilla except for serve 9. 302 weeks at no.1 10. roger federer foundation 11. won many edberg sportsman awards 12. voted favorite player by atpworldtour fans the most times 13. seems like he doesn't sweat or breathe fucking hard (which is crazy) 14. voted second most respected person in the world, after nelson mandela 15. made hewitt's interjection "come on" better 16. respects Sampras unlike other people 17. won a major as a parent like Court, Goolagong and Clijsters 18. ??? 19. Profit!
1:34 is the kind of shot I will most remember Federer for. He's great at every stroke of course, but it's those amazing flicks and deft touches, even against the hardest hit balls, that are most amazing to me.
You can't tell me andy can't handle the pressure when he got to where he was in the world ranking. Do you know how hard it is to make it to that level? Federer is simply at a different level. Take the best player in the world at soccer and put them against Federer. If the soccer player loses is it because they cannot handle the pressure? No, they don't have the skill or ability to beat Federer.
Bill Patrick Jones if you think that people are actually arguing that federer beat roddick at every slam he failed to win then i don't know what to say to you.
Andy Roddick had a big serve but goddamn he was inconsistent as fuck with groundstrokes. Guess that's the same for all big servers like Isner, Karlovic, etc. It amazes me Roddick was #1 for a bit.
He always had a hard time with his forehand. He could flatten it out inside out, but his down the line and cross court forehands didn't penetrate. That let Fed sit on a pitchers mound running around his backhand because Roddick couldn't hurt him consistently on half of the court. That also let fed chip backhands back they might have been winners or generated short balls if Fed had to position himself in the middle of the court.
Never had a good consistent cross court forehand. Even in 2003 and 2004. But his inside out forehand was particularly penetrating back in 2003 and 2004.
Roddick had a great 1st and 2nd serve, good volleys, average-to-poor approaches, average-to-poor BH (topspin and slice). His FH was lethal CC but suffered when he needed variety. Really though he was much better in 2003. His confidence suffered from losing to Federer, he tried to re-tool his game, and lost his strengths without improving his weaknesses enough. Although in 2009 he came close...his BH topspin and slice were superb and he really worked on correct approach shots. The slow courts didn't help...
+Caleb Pereira Gotta agree, lol. More like a very dominant set, but those happen all the time, although rarely between top 10 players, but Rod clearly let nerves get the better of him (Federer complex, duh). The best sets quality-wise are actually pretty much always close, with fight being given from both sides. A bagel always means the bagelled player played shitty, since any pro will surely win at least two service games when playing well.
Like the second set between Federer and Djokovic at Wimbledon 2015. And the second set between Nadal and Verdasco in the 2009 AO semi. Anything except this one. :P
But wasn't Verdasco a weak era mug, according to the line of thinking you subscribe to when declaring Safin to be a weak player? What's the merit of beating him then? ;) Shame on Nadal for needing five sets to beat a guy who just reached his first (and only, as we now know) ever Grand Slam semifinal :>D Double shame on tards who claim Nadal was tired after beating a weak flukemug, lol.
Aww. Behave. :P We're talking "best sets by quality of competition" like you just said, not overall career consistency. So staying on topic, like the examples I just gave you, even a few of the sets in the Aussie 2005 semi-final were some of the best sets ever, *even though Safin is a weak-era mug.* As for the Australian Open 2009, it wasn't a "strong slam" just because of Verdasco's highest level, but mostly because it had a prime Federer in the final. Basically, Nadal's first hardcourt slam had a 10-slam winner in the final. Federer's first hardcourt slam? A 1-slam winner. (prime Safin in the final) Weak? Maybe not. But certainly a notch lower in difficulty than Nadal's first hardcourt slam.
But isn't Federer just a very lucky servebot, according to Nadaltards, such as samfisher1, the likes of which you still have not denounced, thus giving the impression that you, as a Nadal fan, secretly revel in their folly? And Nadal needed that lucky servebot to flop mentally in order to defeat him and took five sets to do it. Not very convincing, hmm? Yeah, man, I need you to denounce their stupid crap so next time I can hilariously redirect them to you and have you take the flak, lol. :>D
He lost 5 of 24 points. Won 1 Kick-Ass challege, 2 aces, and won 6-0. I dont know too much of statistics, but I think that's simply awesome considering he was playing against Andy R., who's not the best, but is still a great player! Rog3r's Th3 B3st!
Federer at his very best made tennis look easy, no-one before or since has done it like this even close. Roddick didn't play brilliant, but he certainly didn't play badly but Federer made him look like a total hack which rarely happens. I was blessed to watch this live, and I have watched this match many times since on YT.
I fail to see how this video even comes close to representing "one of the best sets in tennis history". Federer's feeding off a ton of unforced errors from Andy Roddick hardly comes close to the logical conclusion of "one of the best sets". This video should be titled "One of the worst sets for Andy Roddick in his tennis career".
Hayden Acott , based on your profile pic, it appears that I may be a couple of decades or so older than you, so "my son" may be a bit of a stretch... Lol.... I appreciate your input though... :)
There are two things going on in this video: Roger was playing INCREDIBLE; and Roddick was really struggling. Those two things together will equal a bagel set.
Genius play by Federer, but also giant number of unforced errors made by Roddick... bad strokes, awful volleys, 0 control, allowing Roger to make 150,000 passing shots etc. For the semifinalist and finalist of many Grand Slams with an 1 GS title that was also one of the WORST sets ever by Andy, if not the worst one.
That has a lot to do with the pressure he felt from how well Federer was playing. The pressure got to him and he couldn't make smarter decisions...like not approaching to Federer's forehand lol
Anddd if it wasn't for Roger, Andy would have won that year's AO. "and to shatter Andy Roddick's hopes and dreams of making it through to his first Australian Open final." Such a heartbreak.
Everyone's criticizing this, but in most highlights videos they only show...the highlights! Here we're seeing Roddick's errors as well, which does present a more complete picture of the set but also makes Federer's domination seem less than. I can tell you though that I watched this on TV live back in '07, and it WAS the most dominant set of tennis I'd ever seen. Federer was just off the charts.
Agree. Try Federer vs Nadal (Wimbledon 2008 final), considered by many to be the best match in open era. Or any of the Nadal vs Djokovic matches, these guys are killing it :)
fus10n91 rubbish. federer played his worst tennis in 2008, it was the mono year... roddick played well, it's just sometimes people are on fire. like the nadal vs tsonga (aus open) or nadal vs soderling (french open) matches where nadal played well. he just ran into guys who were playing absurd tennis.
Anarkayy I wasn't talking about his tennis throughout the whole year, I just mentioned a single match ... and it really was an amazing match, you have to be blind not to admit it p.s.: Roddick definitely did not play well in that set ... I mean .... come on, he had one of the best serves in the sport and gets broken 3 consecutive times? Can't be all Federer...
fus10n91 federer blew two sets and made it easy for nadal. how it went to five sets i don't know with federer in the form that he was. but it was somehow a close encounter and if 5 sets makes it amazing to you so be it. roddick was in amazing form at the Australian open. He'd had good results and was considered a threat going in. he'd beaten tsonga, safin, ancic and fish. he showed up to play but federer in a purple patch was just that good on the night. the argument you gave is a non sequitur. it does not necessarily follow from a player being broken that they're playing or serving badly. the other guy might just be predicting & returning even better. as the argument is fallacious i'm forced to reject it. :(
Anarkayy Couple of basic things you're unable to see: 1. The quality of the points and of the shots was top notch. Thats what made it greatest match not the five sets. Federer form was okay as he didn't lose a set before getting there. His shot making was incredible his movement also, anyone would have lost that day against him, but Nadal undeniably got much better. How much fight Federer put into first two sets and how much it was nadal wrecking balls is disputable. The next three sets were classics. Many tennis connoisseur and players agree on this. 2. While Federer certainly didn't make it easier for him, have you ever heard of UNFORCED (means it wasn't federer, ok?) errors? Roddick had those PLENTY and he played badly in that set, who he beat before getting there is irrelevant in this match. 3. Stop being an idiot. I am a Federer fan myself but this much delusion i can't bear.
Jimmyjim2307 serving is not about just serving aces. sampras was an infinitely better player than roddick, but roddick's serve was absolutely unplayable. he made the final semi of the australian open, and along the way he had only 2 double faults. and in many ways, his second serve was just as good as his first. it kicked like a mule and it was only about 20-30km/h slower, which meant it was still like 180-190. if i had the choice to take any shot in the history of the game i'd say rafa's (or rogers) forehand or roddick's serve
I'm only just getting into my Tennis due to the Olympics and from what I've seen from federer, he is like the David Silva of tennis!! (football fans will understand!)
He got rated the best because he played in the most matches that year.The other guys bypassed many matches that year.Not to diminish fed's greatness but he did indeed win twice as many slams then he should have in todays era.
Roddick is truly a case of "caught in the wrong era" but at least he snuck in that U.S. Open and a hell of a career spent mostly in the top 10. How many can say they went 19-17 in a fifth set w/ Federer? And in that match, Roddick had an easy volley to go up two sets to none. Heartbreak...
That Federer was 30 years old and the best player in the world just last year, I think that shows that he would have been just as great no matter who was around him at the top.
At Wimbledon 2012, Yaroslava Shvedova beat Sara Errani 6-0 in the first set, not a single point conceded, 15 winners, 0 unforced errors (unless you count first serves not landing in court) and 3 out of 3 break points converted. The set was completed in just 15 minutes. :)
even allot of the commentators will say rogers playing better than he was before. hes implementing new stratagies. and even his shots have more variety. he hits with more spin than he use to and can still flatten them out. his backhand has been incredible lately. yea maybe in terms of his body hes past his prime. bt everything else about his game has grown and evolved
Wimbledon 2019, the biggest tragedy for Federer- played better than Djokovic, and couldn't win on his own serve, serving for the match, after working hard to break, this will always haunt me, as a Federer fan, forever.
Andy played Roger to a near standstill in one particular Wimbledon final. The last set stretched on for an eternity, with a grim, almost mythological mood of tension and unyielding stubborness.
Ahh. The video is wrongly titled. gives a wrong impression of this being a very competitive set. I think one of the most amazing matches of Fedrer which I can recall was the 2005 semi final vs Safin. Fedrer was in sublime form and Safin matched him all through the match and defeated him. I think that was the best that Fedrer played in a match that he lost.
The difference between this Roger Federer and the present one is that the former knows he can outhit anyone on the tour and doesn't need to shorten points by attacking the net. Nowadays, he's no longer the baseliner he used to be as he no longer believes he can outhit anyone since 2012 I'd say. Look at the net point stats 5:49 only 2 attempts at the net in an entire set whereas nowadays he would have more net approaches in a single game.
I've never seen such a destruction between two top players before. Andy didn't play well. That is for sure. But there wasn't anything he could do on that day. He tried and tried and tried (many bad net approaches of course) but he just hit a wall whatever he did. I'm a neutral tennis-fan (if Haas doesn't play :D) and I'm positive this was one of the greatest performances for sure. It doesn't matter that Andy was bad. Federer was still completely on fire (the whole match). It's clear tho that Roger couldn't school Nadal or Djokovic like that, because they are just too good. But that's not even the discussion here. I really don't understand why people can't just watch a video and enjoy what they're seeing. There has always been a better game, a better player, better video resolution or whatever. Calm the fuck down, bitches :D.
Roger's best set ever has to be French Open 2009 R4 3rd set against Tommy Haas (6-4)..It is his best purely because of its significance. If he hadn't won that set, he would till this day be without a career slam considering how Nadal peaked after that and today Roger would have been too old as a contender for the title. Roger has a career slam today largely because of the rarest of rare scenarios in tennis that opened up a narrow window to win that title in 2009. Roger utilised every bit of that luck..Just goes to show the importance of the fact that 'you should never give up' even after loosing the final 3 times in a row...you never know what chance will bring you opportunities later..
u cant compare eras, during fed's time he invented and revolutionize the game style, being first to come out with new product he won a lot of titles. Later on the rest took his old ideas and find new ones.
Bullshit... This generation of players you talk about has been inspired by Federer. He was the top dog when they came up and as such, was the benchmark for those who wanted to have a shot at the top spot. A good horse jumps only as high as it needs to, and today's level of play only shows how high the "horses" had to jump to overcome the "Federer obstacle".
Man, Wimbledon 2009 shows that literally all Roddick needed to do to get more competitive with Fed is get more fit and hit the backhand up the line. Mix in the occasional net approach just to unsettle the Fed. But really, life is too easy when he doesn't have to cover an entire half of the court and just hit freely to your weaker shot.
actually shvedova won a set the other day at wimbledon without losing a point ie: the golden set. first time its been done since 1983 (i think) but then that is womans tennis for you. this is definately the most dominant set i can remember on the mens side
This match is pretty much identical to the RG 2008 final with one player who doesn't have any confidence and a clear game plan and the other player is pretty much in the zone.
One more point about eras. Who were Sampras' opponents in finals of six of the 14 slams he won? Pioline (twice), Moya, Todd Martin, Michael Chang, an over the hill Boris Becker. Even Agassi, his main rival, was a distracted player who would go into tailspins. Here are Borg's opponents in finals of six of the 11 slams he won: Victor Pecci, Roscoe Tanner, Vilas - 2, Nastase, Gerulaitis. These are fine players but not legends. But Sampras and Borg are definitely legends. Same is true of Roger.
And now we know the new best match is final title of AO 2017. It's all about comeback, new type backhand and supreme genius shots more and more than this.
rodick did make unnessasery unforced errors... but looking at the sats shown at the end... only 6 unforced errors out of federers 24 total points won... so people cant say it was entirely rodicks bad play that caused this destruction set... fed was on fire
i think roddicks prime years were between 2003-05 because he hit shots much flatter and his baseline play was impressive.something changed after that he decided to hit top spin forehands which didnt work well for him
Movement - the decay of the humans body starts there first. Like watching two different players now. You never lose the skills or vision, just the physicality. People should remember this is the peak Fed.
roddick could have used the backhand slice cross court to break the federer rythm and slow it down, roger was really enjoying the rythm from the baseline.
Well actually, the 5th set of Wimbledon 2008 was under-par compared to the tie-break in the 4th set; Federer made quite a lot of errors and the match point was hooked into the net. In my opinion, the 4th set tie-break was full of drama as Nadal had two championship points which were both brilliantly saved.
i dont even think its about roger getting worse or being less consistent. its because the other players are getting better. players now are like machines. they want to play these long points and they train to be able to do them. if u go back to 2004 when roger was dominating, most points didnt even last over 4 strokes.
Hi. I´m the author of this video. You guys complaining about the "Best Set Ever" term obviously didn´t undestand the point. It´s not regarding Federer playing extremely well or Andy playing poorly. It IS the best set ever played by numbers: 6 games to love, 24 points to 6, 11 winners and just 1 unforced error, 3 out of 3 break points converted. All displayed in 22 minutes. Post one set with better numbers than that and I will change the title.
Y no es que A. Rod haya jugado mal, como podría pensarse, es que el nivel de Federer para ese entonces era altísimo, pensaría yo que el nivel de tennis más alto de la historia del deporte!!
After this, Roddick performed the best press conference in tennis history,
Diego Cavalcanti indeed, haha. Pretty epic.
People saying that this is an average set or that Roddick played bad... Look at Federer stats at the endof the video: 0 Double faluts, 1 unforced error the entire set, 11 winners, 100% net points won AND 100% break points won against a huge server. What else do you want?
+Andres Peirano Thiem had 15 winners and just 1 UE vs Querrey (Acapulco SF, set 2) this year.
+Le Master Trollious Quality of player mate, Thiem did well but he wasn't facing Roddick.
+TMJFItself i know, i just wanted to give Thiem an honorable mention
The difference is Federer pulled this thing often for years.
Roddick's terrible net play is partly the reason he didn't win a game in that set.
1:31-1:37 Greatest play ever?! It's unbelievable
We can all talk about win/loss records with Federer and Nadal. But i still think Federer is the greatest of all time, I'll give you a few reasons why...
1. In my eyes, he is the only player that makes the game look easy. Every shot he plays is stunning to watch! Beautiful one hand backhand, powerful forehand, he has every shot in the game.
2. 17 Grand slams (Still unbeaten)
3. Such a cool bastard....
4. doesn't pull his trousers out of his ass every 5 seconds
5. doesn't try to buy time
6. doesn't fake injuries when he's losing
7. doesn't get coaching during points
8. is much more likely to be clean than Robocop
9. doesn't grunt
GuntherL1 Fucking Nadal Hater idiot
GuntherL1
ahah spot on mate!
GuntherL1 7. doesn't get coached by uncle toni during the match
8. doesn't grunt like a gorilla except for serve
9. 302 weeks at no.1
10. roger federer foundation
11. won many edberg sportsman awards
12. voted favorite player by atpworldtour fans the most times
13. seems like he doesn't sweat or breathe fucking hard (which is crazy)
14. voted second most respected person in the world, after nelson mandela
15. made hewitt's interjection "come on" better
16. respects Sampras unlike other people
17. won a major as a parent like Court, Goolagong and Clijsters
18. ???
19. Profit!
Can't agree more. I am Sampras fan but Federer has that finesse on all of his strokes.
1:34 is the kind of shot I will most remember Federer for. He's great at every stroke of course, but it's those amazing flicks and deft touches, even against the hardest hit balls, that are most amazing to me.
Should the title not rather be "Andy Roddick cannot handle defensive balls played with spin" ?
You can't tell me andy can't handle the pressure when he got to where he was in the world ranking. Do you know how hard it is to make it to that level? Federer is simply at a different level. Take the best player in the world at soccer and put them against Federer. If the soccer player loses is it because they cannot handle the pressure? No, they don't have the skill or ability to beat Federer.
4 finals, 3 semis and 1 quarter final to Federer that's it
uuuh that's a lot
Bill Patrick Jones if you think that people are actually arguing that federer beat roddick at every slam he failed to win then i don't know what to say to you.
Bill Patrick Jones you're a decent mix of moving the goal posts and straw man fallacy.
you're a walking catalogue of fallacies.
Bill Patrick Jones you make really weak points. you should learn what makes a good and bad argument; to avoid making bad ones in future.
Roddick volley attempt = suicide attempt
lol
Respect to Rodick. He's always a competitor and gave us some great tennis over the years.
Roddick's coming to the net from the baseline withterrible approaching shots always makes me laugh lol
ikr
Exactly. Especially knowing his quality of volleying.
Bring the courts back to this speed....
Nadal the 🐐
WoW!!! It is wonder Andy Roddick did not give up Tennis altogether - even stop watching it.
He has my admiration for that!!!
Andy Roddick had a big serve but goddamn he was inconsistent as fuck with groundstrokes. Guess that's the same for all big servers like Isner, Karlovic, etc. It amazes me Roddick was #1 for a bit.
He always had a hard time with his forehand. He could flatten it out inside out, but his down the line and cross court forehands didn't penetrate. That let Fed sit on a pitchers mound running around his backhand because Roddick couldn't hurt him consistently on half of the court. That also let fed chip backhands back they might have been winners or generated short balls if Fed had to position himself in the middle of the court.
Benjamin Hansen u should check out how he was back in like 2003 or 2004. Man His forehands are just flying! Making lots of cool winners >:)
Never had a good consistent cross court forehand. Even in 2003 and 2004. But his inside out forehand was particularly penetrating back in 2003 and 2004.
Roddick had a great 1st and 2nd serve, good volleys, average-to-poor approaches, average-to-poor BH (topspin and slice). His FH was lethal CC but suffered when he needed variety. Really though he was much better in 2003. His confidence suffered from losing to Federer, he tried to re-tool his game, and lost his strengths without improving his weaknesses enough. Although in 2009 he came close...his BH topspin and slice were superb and he really worked on correct approach shots.
The slow courts didn't help...
Josh Carter Roddick was a consistently a top 10 or top 5 player year after year. Give him some credit jeez
Who is that training partner of Federer, he should practice more.
Think it was Tony Roche.
It's ironic that you start a video of "the best set in tennis history" with 10 unforced errors.
+Caleb Pereira Gotta agree, lol. More like a very dominant set, but those happen all the time, although rarely between top 10 players, but Rod clearly let nerves get the better of him (Federer complex, duh).
The best sets quality-wise are actually pretty much always close, with fight being given from both sides. A bagel always means the bagelled player played shitty, since any pro will surely win at least two service games when playing well.
Like the second set between Federer and Djokovic at Wimbledon 2015.
And the second set between Nadal and Verdasco in the 2009 AO semi.
Anything except this one. :P
But wasn't Verdasco a weak era mug, according to the line of thinking you subscribe to when declaring Safin to be a weak player? What's the merit of beating him then? ;) Shame on Nadal for needing five sets to beat a guy who just reached his first (and only, as we now know) ever Grand Slam semifinal :>D Double shame on tards who claim Nadal was tired after beating a weak flukemug, lol.
Aww. Behave. :P
We're talking "best sets by quality of competition" like you just said, not overall career consistency. So staying on topic, like the examples I just gave you, even a few of the sets in the Aussie 2005 semi-final were some of the best sets ever, *even though Safin is a weak-era mug.*
As for the Australian Open 2009, it wasn't a "strong slam" just because of Verdasco's highest level, but mostly because it had a prime Federer in the final. Basically, Nadal's first hardcourt slam had a 10-slam winner in the final. Federer's first hardcourt slam? A 1-slam winner. (prime Safin in the final) Weak? Maybe not. But certainly a notch lower in difficulty than Nadal's first hardcourt slam.
But isn't Federer just a very lucky servebot, according to Nadaltards, such as samfisher1, the likes of which you still have not denounced, thus giving the impression that you, as a Nadal fan, secretly revel in their folly? And Nadal needed that lucky servebot to flop mentally in order to defeat him and took five sets to do it. Not very convincing, hmm? Yeah, man, I need you to denounce their stupid crap so next time I can hilariously redirect them to you and have you take the flak, lol. :>D
Try watching the 2000 Australian Open Semi Finals with Sampras and Agassi. 2 out of 5 of the sets are the best sets in tennis history!
5th set in the 2017 Australian Open.
This was literally the set that made me a tennis fan and a huge federer fan. Had no interest in tennis before this. Great upload!
He lost 5 of 24 points. Won 1 Kick-Ass challege, 2 aces, and won 6-0. I dont know too much of statistics, but I think that's simply awesome considering he was playing against Andy R., who's not the best, but is still a great player! Rog3r's Th3 B3st!
Federer at his very best made tennis look easy, no-one before or since has done it like this even close. Roddick didn't play brilliant, but he certainly didn't play badly but Federer made him look like a total hack which rarely happens. I was blessed to watch this live, and I have watched this match many times since on YT.
I fail to see how this video even comes close to representing "one of the best sets in tennis history". Federer's feeding off a ton of unforced errors from Andy Roddick hardly comes close to the logical conclusion of "one of the best sets". This video should be titled "One of the worst sets for Andy Roddick in his tennis career".
I couldn't agree more. Actually, there's a lot of tennis players besides Roddick, who could play a set against Federer with this outcome.
Jack Smack clickbait my son that's why
Hayden Acott , based on your profile pic, it appears that I may be a couple of decades or so older than you, so "my son" may be a bit of a stretch... Lol.... I appreciate your input though... :)
There are two things going on in this video: Roger was playing INCREDIBLE; and Roddick was really struggling. Those two things together will equal a bagel set.
Rodger didn't play the best set. Roddick played the worst
***** No, Federer played superbly, Roddick poorly
***** I think its Roger's class which made A-Rod look so silly...
Roddick had no choice but to play poorly
Not the best probably 1 of the easiest.
so truth the title of the video is completely wrong
I almost cried watching this match, have never seen anything so beautiful
Genius play by Federer, but also giant number of unforced errors made by Roddick... bad strokes, awful volleys, 0 control, allowing Roger to make 150,000 passing shots etc. For the semifinalist and finalist of many Grand Slams with an 1 GS title that was also one of the WORST sets ever by Andy, if not the worst one.
That has a lot to do with the pressure he felt from how well Federer was playing. The pressure got to him and he couldn't make smarter decisions...like not approaching to Federer's forehand lol
ToomcioZioomcio still better than u
Wrong, but thanks anyway
I remember that game, felt so sorry for roddick. Wish Federer would have done that to nadal at least once ;-)
- Final Wimbledon 2006
- Final hamburg 2007
- London finals rr 2011
Charlie Phirpo
Those were nice victories but he didn't demolish nadal the way he did it with roddick.
how would you even think that roger hasn't done this thing to nadal? obviously you stopped watching tennis after samprass
2017 Indian wells..add that too.
Anddd if it wasn't for Roger, Andy would have won that year's AO.
"and to shatter Andy Roddick's hopes and dreams of making it through to his first Australian Open final." Such a heartbreak.
The third set of this match is still the most sublime set of tennis ever played.
Everyone's criticizing this, but in most highlights videos they only show...the highlights! Here we're seeing Roddick's errors as well, which does present a more complete picture of the set but also makes Federer's domination seem less than. I can tell you though that I watched this on TV live back in '07, and it WAS the most dominant set of tennis I'd ever seen. Federer was just off the charts.
the 6:0 versus Nadal in London was just awesome.
i think it's just rodick who was'ent on his day and made it pretty easy for federer
Agree. Try Federer vs Nadal (Wimbledon 2008 final), considered by many to be the best match in open era. Or any of the Nadal vs Djokovic matches, these guys are killing it :)
fus10n91 rubbish. federer played his worst tennis in 2008, it was the mono year...
roddick played well, it's just sometimes people are on fire. like the nadal vs tsonga (aus open) or nadal vs soderling (french open) matches where nadal played well. he just ran into guys who were playing absurd tennis.
Anarkayy I wasn't talking about his tennis throughout the whole year, I just mentioned a single match ... and it really was an amazing match, you have to be blind not to admit it
p.s.: Roddick definitely did not play well in that set ... I mean .... come on, he had one of the best serves in the sport and gets broken 3 consecutive times? Can't be all Federer...
fus10n91 federer blew two sets and made it easy for nadal. how it went to five sets i don't know with federer in the form that he was. but it was somehow a close encounter and if 5 sets makes it amazing to you so be it.
roddick was in amazing form at the Australian open. He'd had good results and was considered a threat going in. he'd beaten tsonga, safin, ancic and fish. he showed up to play but federer in a purple patch was just that good on the night.
the argument you gave is a non sequitur. it does not necessarily follow from a player being broken that they're playing or serving badly. the other guy might just be predicting & returning even better. as the argument is fallacious i'm forced to reject it. :(
Anarkayy Couple of basic things you're unable to see:
1. The quality of the points and of the shots was top notch. Thats what made it greatest match not the five sets. Federer form was okay as he didn't lose a set before getting there. His shot making was incredible his movement also, anyone would have lost that day against him, but Nadal undeniably got much better. How much fight Federer put into first two sets and how much it was nadal wrecking balls is disputable. The next three sets were classics. Many tennis connoisseur and players agree on this.
2. While Federer certainly didn't make it easier for him, have you ever heard of UNFORCED (means it wasn't federer, ok?) errors? Roddick had those PLENTY and he played badly in that set, who he beat before getting there is irrelevant in this match.
3. Stop being an idiot.
I am a Federer fan myself but this much delusion i can't bear.
the game federer played at 2-0 was one of the best returning games ever. he was toying with the greatest serve in the history of the sport. amazing
Sampras had the best serve in the history of the sport.
Jimmyjim2307 false.
whatever.
Jimmyjim2307 serving is not about just serving aces. sampras was an infinitely better player than roddick, but roddick's serve was absolutely unplayable. he made the final semi of the australian open, and along the way he had only 2 double faults. and in many ways, his second serve was just as good as his first. it kicked like a mule and it was only about 20-30km/h slower, which meant it was still like 180-190. if i had the choice to take any shot in the history of the game i'd say rafa's (or rogers) forehand or roddick's serve
whoryare i would take Federer's backhand. Amazingly accurate near line shots vs Roddick's dropping the balls in front of Federer
I'm only just getting into my Tennis due to the Olympics and from what I've seen from federer, he is like the David Silva of tennis!! (football fans will understand!)
Shvedova just played a golden set this past Wimbledon 2012. 6-0, all six games at love, in 15 minutes.
He got rated the best because he played in the most matches that year.The other guys bypassed many matches that year.Not to diminish fed's greatness but he did indeed win twice as many slams then he should have in todays era.
Roddick is truly a case of "caught in the wrong era" but at least he snuck in that U.S. Open and a hell of a career spent mostly in the top 10. How many can say they went 19-17 in a fifth set w/ Federer? And in that match, Roddick had an easy volley to go up two sets to none. Heartbreak...
knew it was this one before I clicked on it. I remember watching this live and was in AWE at how well Fedbot was playing
That Federer was 30 years old and the best player in the world just last year, I think that shows that he would have been just as great no matter who was around him at the top.
Federer delivered Del Potro a love set in roughly 15 minutes at AO 2009 quarter final
At Wimbledon 2012, Yaroslava Shvedova beat Sara Errani 6-0 in the first set, not a single point conceded, 15 winners, 0 unforced errors (unless you count first serves not landing in court) and 3 out of 3 break points converted. The set was completed in just 15 minutes. :)
Federer delivered Djokovic a bagel on hardcourt last year. Both have given Nole more lopsided losses than the final on Monday.
Roger said after this was a day for him to remember and for Andy to forget, respectfully of course..
even allot of the commentators will say rogers playing better than he was before. hes implementing new stratagies. and even his shots have more variety. he hits with more spin than he use to and can still flatten them out. his backhand has been incredible lately. yea maybe in terms of his body hes past his prime. bt everything else about his game has grown and evolved
For me the greatest !
wtf
*for every sane person
Wimbledon 2019, the biggest tragedy for Federer- played better than Djokovic, and couldn't win on his own serve, serving for the match, after working hard to break, this will always haunt me, as a Federer fan, forever.
Andy played Roger to a near standstill in one particular Wimbledon final. The last set stretched on for an eternity, with a grim, almost mythological mood of tension and unyielding stubborness.
Ahh. The video is wrongly titled. gives a wrong impression of this being a very competitive set. I think one of the most amazing matches of Fedrer which I can recall was the 2005 semi final vs Safin. Fedrer was in sublime form and Safin matched him all through the match and defeated him. I think that was the best that Fedrer played in a match that he lost.
I'm not sure who this Fedrer player is, but you sound pretty knowledgable of him
All those guys brought strong competition from 2004-2012. Federer was just better than players his own age. He did not face weak competition.
The difference between this Roger Federer and the present one is that the former knows he can outhit anyone on the tour and doesn't need to shorten points by attacking the net. Nowadays, he's no longer the baseliner he used to be as he no longer believes he can outhit anyone since 2012 I'd say. Look at the net point stats 5:49 only 2 attempts at the net in an entire set whereas nowadays he would have more net approaches in a single game.
I've never seen such a destruction between two top players before. Andy didn't play well. That is for sure. But there wasn't anything he could do on that day. He tried and tried and tried (many bad net approaches of course) but he just hit a wall whatever he did. I'm a neutral tennis-fan (if Haas doesn't play :D) and I'm positive this was one of the greatest performances for sure. It doesn't matter that Andy was bad. Federer was still completely on fire (the whole match).
It's clear tho that Roger couldn't school Nadal or Djokovic like that, because they are just too good. But that's not even the discussion here. I really don't understand why people can't just watch a video and enjoy what they're seeing.
There has always been a better game, a better player, better video resolution or whatever. Calm the fuck down, bitches :D.
Roger's 1st set against Hewitt in the 2004 US Open might be his best.
Roger's got the best back-hand I've ever seen.
Roger's best set ever has to be French Open 2009 R4 3rd set against Tommy Haas (6-4)..It is his best purely because of its significance. If he hadn't won that set, he would till this day be without a career slam considering how Nadal peaked after that and today Roger would have been too old as a contender for the title. Roger has a career slam today largely because of the rarest of rare scenarios in tennis that opened up a narrow window to win that title in 2009. Roger utilised every bit of that luck..Just goes to show the importance of the fact that 'you should never give up' even after loosing the final 3 times in a row...you never know what chance will bring you opportunities later..
hahaha i think more than a bunch of players got the opportunity to play the best sets in tennis history against Roddick.. haha
Paco Chuquiure pretty obvious you didn't watch tennis much
Watch the incredible returns of Federer. The reaction force.
His best set of tennis ever may have actually been the 6-0 set he dropped on Nadal this year in London if we were to update it.
The level of play has improved so much had Federer compete against this generation at his prime, he wouldn't have won as many titles as he did.
u cant compare eras, during fed's time he invented and revolutionize the game style, being first to come out with new product he won a lot of titles. Later on the rest took his old ideas and find new ones.
Bullshit... This generation of players you talk about has been inspired by Federer. He was the top dog when they came up and as such, was the benchmark for those who wanted to have a shot at the top spot. A good horse jumps only as high as it needs to, and today's level of play only shows how high the "horses" had to jump to overcome the "Federer obstacle".
胡说！
Shows you have no idea of tennis.
lol nadal had won his first slam in 2005, majority of the draws in the Fed slams, nadal exist inside. No excuses.
Man, Wimbledon 2009 shows that literally all Roddick needed to do to get more competitive with Fed is get more fit and hit the backhand up the line. Mix in the occasional net approach just to unsettle the Fed. But really, life is too easy when he doesn't have to cover an entire half of the court and just hit freely to your weaker shot.
actually shvedova won a set the other day at wimbledon without losing a point ie: the golden set. first time its been done since 1983 (i think) but then that is womans tennis for you. this is definately the most dominant set i can remember on the mens side
This match is pretty much identical to the RG 2008 final with one player who doesn't have any confidence and a clear game plan and the other player is pretty much in the zone.
A set 6-0 and 24-0 in Points is called a "Golden Set" and only 2 players did it. Bill Scanlon (1983) and Jaroslawa Schwedowa (2012).
One more point about eras. Who were Sampras' opponents in finals of six of the 14 slams he won? Pioline (twice), Moya, Todd Martin, Michael Chang, an over the hill Boris Becker. Even Agassi, his main rival, was a distracted player who would go into tailspins. Here are Borg's opponents in finals of six of the 11 slams he won: Victor Pecci, Roscoe Tanner, Vilas - 2, Nastase, Gerulaitis. These are fine players but not legends. But Sampras and Borg are definitely legends. Same is true of Roger.
And now we know the new best match is final title of AO 2017. It's all about comeback, new type backhand and supreme genius shots more and more than this.
federer played with invincibility mode on, but roddick had two easy put-aways which he missed early on. roddick did well to keep going as well.
This is showing a defensive Federer. He has done way better than that
You guys are right. It wasn´t the best set ever but one of the best.
Title changed. Thank you for your comments. Cheers.
rodick did make unnessasery unforced errors... but looking at the sats shown at the end... only 6 unforced errors out of federers 24 total points won... so people cant say it was entirely rodicks bad play that caused this destruction set... fed was on fire
it was a mix
this is why roddick change his forehand to more of a defensive weapon
Court was really fast...a lot faster than what it is today! I guess that hilarious press conference from Roddick came after this match no?
The title should be " Roddick breaks the record of unforced errors made in a single set "
Bill Scanlon against Marcos Hocevar 1983, 24 points to love
Jaroslawa Schwedowa against Sara Errani Wimbledon 2012, 24 points to love.
Yeah thx for Video
Federer at is best!
i think roddicks prime years were between 2003-05 because he hit shots much flatter and his baseline play was impressive.something changed after that he decided to hit top spin forehands which didnt work well for him
you are right , and this is against roddick who had this amazing serve
Fed was basically able to get Andy's serve back ... and Andy had no response.
Movement - the decay of the humans body starts there first. Like watching two different players now. You never lose the skills or vision, just the physicality. People should remember this is the peak Fed.
Sean White He is still amazing, but can't hit those winners from everywhere from any position quite like he used to.
this is so much bellow the level Novak plays now
Federer is godlike
roddick could have used the backhand slice cross court to break the federer rythm and slow it down, roger was really enjoying the rythm from the baseline.
Wow what year is that green courts is that the Australian open
spot on my friend not to mention wimbledon beating djoker and murray last year and almost winning a gold medal rite after in olympics
watched that live, it was madnes ^^
I don't remember how much Roddick was strong , he was for a time number one . Amazing points when you have two styles of practice.
Top-class tennis for the first 28 seconds!
CONGRATIONS Ronald Federer your the FOAD!
ROGER EL MEJOR DE TODOS LOS TIEMPOS¡¡
spoken too soon, he beat Murray 6-0, 6-1 yesterday at the London atp finals :)
This match was after Roddick said to the press he had his 'best chance ever'...
He had Andy all over the court
Well actually, the 5th set of Wimbledon 2008 was under-par compared to the tie-break in the 4th set; Federer made quite a lot of errors and the match point was hooked into the net. In my opinion, the 4th set tie-break was full of drama as Nadal had two championship points which were both brilliantly saved.
i dont even think its about roger getting worse or being less consistent. its because the other players are getting better. players now are like machines. they want to play these long points and they train to be able to do them. if u go back to 2004 when roger was dominating, most points didnt even last over 4 strokes.
There are a lot of positives for Roddick..one being that this wasn't New York..
11 winners to 1 UE though. That's insane.
i cant believe this is 6 yrs ago
this was only 5 years ago, and he looks so much younger..
Me gusta mucho ver jugar Roger Federer, juega espectacular.
Hi. I´m the author of this video. You guys complaining about the "Best Set Ever" term obviously didn´t undestand the point. It´s not regarding Federer playing extremely well or Andy playing poorly. It IS the best set ever played by numbers: 6 games to love, 24 points to 6, 11 winners and just 1 unforced error, 3 out of 3 break points converted. All displayed in 22 minutes. Post one set with better numbers than that and I will change the title.
This was Roddick in the early-stage of his soft-loopy top-spin foreheads to be more consistent
Two words, Fabrice Santoro - look up his name with Federer, and you will see a spectacle.
I remember watching this live. Felt a little bad for Roddick when Federer activated god mode.
1:39 sums it up
Y no es que A. Rod haya jugado mal, como podría pensarse, es que el nivel de Federer para ese entonces era altísimo, pensaría yo que el nivel de tennis más alto de la historia del deporte!!