Wimbledon

Fed served around 104 at the last count .. and Rodders 80 ish ... during the match vilks.
The Beeb registered each ace bottom left of screen as it was served.

Allowing for say 7 points per game, that makes up to a total almost 26 finished games !! Amazing ...

I don't think those numbers are right re aces.

They might have been service winners (ie including non-returned serves).

I seem to recall Federer racking up his 50 towards the end of the match

Aye, woulda meant they each won nearly every point with an ace.

He didn't age THAT much surely?

Prolly felt 50 by the end of 4 hours of hard tennis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/5752275/Wimbledon-2009-key-statistics.html

Roddick serverd 187 for the tournament and Fed 50 in the final.

You were probably looking at the number of "winners" Merls, which was probably around 180 as the last time I remember looking at it Federer had 100 and Roddick 71, and there were still 2 or 3 games left.

I'm confused now vilks ... totally ... and bugger ... I've erased the entire match as it was taking up 14 percent recording time on the Sky box!Anyway - as I recall ... the little info box bottom left appeared thus:
ACES
Federer - 102
Roddick - 75

Anyone else still have the recording ?

Oh well ... no worries, p'raps I misread it or summat ... and maybe they were winners as opposed to aces ...

The Don99 wrote:As great a player as Federer is (in fact he is the GOAT), there is something about his personality which is distinctly irritable. Pundits go on about his graciousness, but we have seen his lack of sportsmanship in the last few years when the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic have threatened his supremacy. The contrast between Roddick and Federer was summed up today...Roddick held back the tears, despite being devastated at losing his 3rd wimbledon final against Fed , and allowed Fed to enjoy his record breaking moment. Meanwhile Fed could not do the same at the Aussie Open, allowing the waterworks to flow, and completely ruining Nadal's victory celebration.

being a bit prone to crying is hardly a sign of poor sportsmanship. emotionally two people may feel equally down, but one may not be able to control his emotions and the other one might

Merlin wrote:I'm confused now vilks ... totally ... and bugger ... I've erased the entire match as it was taking up 14 percent recording time on the Sky box!Anyway - as I recall ... the little info box bottom left appeared thus:
ACES
Federer - 102
Roddick - 75

Anyone else still have the recording ?

Oh well ... no worries, p'raps I misread it or summat ... and maybe they were winners as opposed to aces ...

No, it was definately winners. If you look at the BBC as it happened page then you can find this:

"Federer 5-7 7-6 (8-6) 7-6 (7-5) 3-6 12-11* Roddick
Another question I don't know the answer to: has Fed ever served more aces than this in a match? The world number two hammers down three in a row to stroll through that game. That's 45 in total. We're nudging towards four hours."

So unless he hit 55 aces in his next 3 service games I think it's safe to say it was 100 winners and not aces .

vilkrang wrote:

So unless he hit 55 aces in his next 3 service games I think it's safe to say it was 100 winners and not aces .

Okay - that one line convinces me !
Case awarded!

The Don99 wrote:As great a player as Federer is (in fact he is the GOAT)

Still debatable that he's the GOAT. There's such a rush to decalre today's champions in anything as better than those who've gone before.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present two pieces of evidence for your consideration...

1. Bill Tilden. Won 10 grand slam titles between 1920 and 1930. In the days when travel was by ship, when it took weeks to reach the Aus Open so he didn't AFAIK play in the Aus Open. He made the final of the US Open every year bar one from 1918 to 1929, and then won a heap of titles as a professional, when the slams weren't open to pros.

2. Rod Laver. Won 6 grand slam titles as an anamteur, including the calendar year slam in 1962. Then went to the pro circuit, winning at least 11 titles that were probably equivalent to gland slam strength in the pro circuit between 63 and 68, then when the pros were allowed back in, he won another 5 GS titles, including a Slam in 1968.

Sure Fed-Ex is good, but there's a lot of debate that can never be resolved.

Is Federer the Forum Goat?

Sure Fed-Ex is good, but there's a lot of debate that can never be resolved.

No it can't be resolved and I'm kinda glad it can't.

Laver & Fed are the others #1 fan. That's enough.

Laver was a mountainous talent with all the shots. Fed is a mountainous talent with all the shots.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Is Federer the Forum Goat?

No, that is Dello.