[isetcap]

The Wimbledon Final was absolutely amazing. The rise of Nadal may have men's tennis back on the map, but the fortitude and shotmaking of Federer was simply superhuman.

Well done!

[Mudcat]

I lost my enthusiasm for tennis around the end of the Borg/McEnroe era (well, I have some enthusiasm for betting on it but I don't generally want to watch it) - but I had today's match on, muted, as I was reading my Sunday paper. It wasn't long before I got completely caught up in it.

Early in the 5th set I thought Federer was going to lose it but he is just such a force. He seems like a great champion.

Seems like a great guy too. I see no evidence of a hot dog bone in his body. Humble, classy.

I'm happy for him.

[isetcap]

Today I was reminded that tennis is such a pure sport. Especially with the new line technology, the contests are always decided by the competitors. Contrast that to the other major head-to-head sports where the interpretation of the rules of the game (officiating) too often becomes a significant deciding factor.

[BigBollocks]

I had Federer today as well as on a tournament future and I'm a ****ing idiot despite the win. There's no way he should have ever been -500 today.

I tend to be hard on myself, but I think way too many people don't analyze their wins as well as their losses. If I have a team -2.5 and they win on a last second field goal in a virtual coinflip match I feel like a total baffoon despite the win. If you want to win long term you have to have a sustainable edge, and anyone patting themselves on the back for playing Federer at -500 after winning two tiebreakers and saving four break points in the fifth will not last long in this game....

[jjgold]

Nadal is on the same level now

Roger knows it too

[Santo]

Today I was reminded that tennis is such a pure sport. Especially with the new line technology, the contests are always decided by the competitors. Contrast that to the other major head-to-head sports where the interpretation of the rules of the game (officiating) too often becomes a significant deciding factor.

At this level, in a grand slam yes. It's not always the same, there have been a few well known betting scams/fixes the last few years.

[isetcap]

At this level, in a grand slam yes. It's not always the same, there have been a few well known betting scams/fixes the last few years.

Ahhh, yes. Most certainly correct. I suppose I am only noticing the matchplay we see at the highest level of the sport. In addition to match fixing in the lesser events, I'm sure the line technology does not make its way to every stop in the tour.

It is still much more refreshing than debating the legacy of a dynasty whose lineage traces all the way back to a fumble that was ruled otherwise, or fan interference that is ruled a homerun, or a travel that goes uncalled, or some other idiotic technicality.

[acw]

I had Federer today as well as on a tournament future and I'm a ****ing idiot despite the win. There's no way he should have ever been -500 today.

Do not worry BigBollocks according to the best gambler in the world (who backs Federer every single match) Federer should have been -5000:

"Go on Feddy, my son," yells Findlay to a screen featuring Roger Federer, the player on whom our gambler won £300,000 at the US Open in 2005, having staked £400,000. "And I had another £100,000 on him when Agassi broke him to go 4-2 up in the third set of the final because the crowd over-stepped the mark. I could see what that did to Fed. It's the first time I've seen him angry. He just absolutely tore Agassi's head off after that." Federer won 6-3, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1 and Findlay won another round of his battle to stay alive and solvent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...8/somott18.xml

[RickySteve]

Today I was reminded that tennis is such a pure sport. Especially with the new line technology, the contests are always decided by the competitors. Contrast that to the other major head-to-head sports where the interpretation of the rules of the game (officiating) too often becomes a significant deciding factor.

The umpire decided the men's doubles final on a horrible call.

[gridironguy]

The umpire decided the men's doubles final on a horrible call.

Yes, it was a bad call when the umpire said that one of the Ryan twins hit the net with his racket, HOWEVER, the Frenchmen beat the Ryan brothers 3 sets to 1 so to say that the entire match was decided on this one point, is well, um, IDIOTIC, for lack of a better word.

[Tevez]

I had Federer today as well as on a tournament future and I'm a ****ing idiot despite the win. There's no way he should have ever been -500 today.

I tend to be hard on myself, but I think way too many people don't analyze their wins as well as their losses. If I have a team -2.5 and they win on a last second field goal in a virtual coinflip match I feel like a total baffoon despite the win. If you want to win long term you have to have a sustainable edge, and anyone patting themselves on the back for playing Federer at -500 after winning two tiebreakers and saving four break points in the fifth will not last long in this game....

Hope to see some juicy odds for Nadal during the hardcourt season as I believe he is now better than Federerl

[gridironguy]

Hope to see some juicy odds for Nadal during the hardcourt season as I believe he is now better than Federerl

I am a huge fan of Nadal, but this is incorrect -- he is NOT better than Federer right now on any surface except clay.

At the Australian and US Open, both hardcourts, Nadal has done nothing. You will be wasting your money betting on Nadal to win either the US Open 2007 or Australian Open 2008. Both tourneys will go to either Federer, Roddick (perhaps US Open), or the young up and coming Djokovic.

[Zerlinco]

Finally over.

The rain delays were driving me up the wall.

[gridironguy]

The rain delays were crazy and I cannot believe they got the whole tourney completed in the fortnight.

I already miss Wimbledon. This sucks.

[jjgold]

What people are missnig is Fed is intimaidated by Nadal which you then have a huge eadge on any surface betting Raffy, hey this tourney could of gone either way and this was Feds best surface.

[Tevez]

I believe Nadal will dominate on all surfaces soon. Federer only a little bit better than Nadal on grass

[osotogari]

the bets was jon mcanroe

[tribet]

I am a huge fan of Nadal, but this is incorrect -- he is NOT better than Federer right now on any surface except clay.

At the Australian and US Open, both hardcourts, Nadal has done nothing. You will be wasting your money betting on Nadal to win either the US Open 2007 or Australian Open 2008. Both tourneys will go to either Federer, Roddick (perhaps US Open), or the young up and coming Djokovic.

I disagree with that take away Feds cheap points on his serve and he would have lost,he won't get as many cheap points on anything other surface than grass and Roddicks game is too 1 dimensional to win a GS.

[gridironguy]

I disagree with that take away Feds cheap points on his serve and he would have lost,he won't get as many cheap points on anything other surface than grass and Roddicks game is too 1 dimensional to win a GS.

Roddick has already won a GS as he took the US Open in 2003. He has also made 3 GS Finals as well (2004 & 2005 Wimbledon and 2006 US Open) but unfortunately he ran into a guy by the name of Roger Federer who has just tied Bjorn Borg's record of 5 straight Wimbledon titles and 11 total Grand Slam wins.

Again, I am a HUGE fan of Nadal, but he has only made the Quarterfinals at the Australian and US Opens. Until he gets past the Quarters on a hardcourt, I cannot put him in Federer's class.

Calling anything Fed does on a tennis court "cheap" is completely and utterly ignorant.

Sorry.

[RickySteve]

Yes, it was a bad call when the umpire said that one of the Ryan twins hit the net with his racket, HOWEVER, the Frenchmen beat the Ryan brothers 3 sets to 1 so to say that the entire match was decided on this one point, is well, um, IDIOTIC, for lack of a better word.

You can have your opinion, and I can be right.