With Roddick’s impressive 2009 tiebreak record at 24-4, many felt that if the American held his serve, he would be in with a decent shot at preventing Federer from claiming the trophy for the second consecutive year. This held true, as Roddick stormed the first set, giving up very few points on his serve and even breaking Federer to avoid the tiebreak, winning the first set 7-5. The second set was a deadlock. Neither man giving an inch on his serve. This set was destined for the tiebreak. Roddick proved that he is even more dominant than the world number 1 in these situations by jumping out to an emphatic 6-2 lead, giving Roddick 4 set points. This was his moment, but he choked. Federer won the next 9 points in the match. The third set provided more of the same, after another stalemate, the tiebreak left everything up for grabs. This time it was Federer who jumped out to the early lead, but he held on. Roddick broke Federer in the 4th set, and won it comfortably 6-3. So with it headed to the decisive 5th set, everyone wondered, how many games will this one go? Roddick had broken Federer twice, while he himself had yet to be broken. This had all the makings of an epic. And it was. 30 games later, Federer was pumping his fists and Roddick was battling the tears. It was too hard to watch.

During the customary post-match interviews, Roddick said all the right things, voice-cracking and all. He truly played well enough to be a Wimbledon champion, he just missed that killer instinct that he has lacked his entire career. That being said, this was far from “same old Andy”. Federer tried (he really should have left it) to console his counterpart by saying “I lost a very difficult one on this court last year” to which the quick-witted Roddick responded “Yeah, but you’d already won five.” When the camera went to his face, it was clear he was not joking, he felt robbed. This always frustrates me in sports. Seeing winners, who have too many winner’s medals to count, trump the guys who just want one so badly. Its always impossible to watch, and even tougher to try and understand. To the question, “How does it feel to have the trophy back?” Federer responded, “A little funny.” Thus, providing us with another quote from the Swiss marksman, that surely made Roddick want to yack his vitamin water all over center court. Federer now has his sixth Wimbledon title. Why can’t Roddick just have one?

“I don’t think a lot of them would last five sets,” he said, according to Reuters. “The training you have to do to last five sets, especially seven best-of-five-set matches, it’s a lot more than three-set matches. There would obviously be question marks [over whether] a lot of them could last that much,”

Personally, that sounds to me like he is indirectly saying that the women don’t have to train as hard as the men, something that I think quite a few women’s tennis players would feel fairly insulted by. And I don’t believe for a second that Serena Williams would call it quits in a five-set match before she was done.

I was very shocked when I read in the article on ESPN.com, to find out that it wasn’t until 2007 started awarding equal prize money to men and women competitors. That really does surprise me that it has taken so long. And it just shows the general feeling in the sport of tennis that a good number of people don’t see the male and female athletes as equal competitors, or at the very least being of equal importance. Personally, I think the women deserve as much credit as the men, and likewise just as much money.

However, I challenge the women to go one step further. There is no reason why the women can’t play five-set matches in Grand Slams. Yes, it would change the way they prepare, but ultimately it would add the competition, endurance would be more of a factor, just like it is in the men’s competitions. And it would prove to skeptics and people like Hewitt that the women are equally as capable as he is, and deserve to be recognized as the incredible athletes that they are.

Immediately after Federer won the Open, the announcers continually discussed Federer being confirmed as the “greatest male tennis player ever.” Now, I’m really not going to comment on that, because I know nothing about tennis players before I was born, but I can compare him to the previous great: Pete Sampras. I think you can probably make a very solid case that Federer already had a better career than Sampras, but today certainly confirmed it. Those clay courts, both of these legends’ nemesis, finally gave way to Federer. And I’m extremely happy they did. I like Federer. He’s so passionate, yet so concentrated even when he’s just points away from a championship.

I guess the point I want to make is that Federer is an amazing player to watch, whether you like him or hate him. He probably is the best male tennis player of all-time and at the least has joined an elite club of only six players to have won all four grand slam championships. So no matter what kind of tennis fan, be happy that you get the chance to watch a man as great as Federer.