The Championships, Wimbledon 2009 Gentlemen's Singles Final - Analysis

On Sunday, July 5th, Roger Federer will face American, Andy Roddick, in the Gentlemen’s Singles Final at The Championships, Wimbledon. In their past twenty matches, Federer has come out on the winning side eighteen times, but Sunday is a new day. The stakes are high for both players as Federer is attempting to win his fifteen Grand Slam singles title and break his tie with Pete Sampras. On the other side of the net, Andy Roddick desperately wants to win a second Grand Slam title to go with his 2003 U.S. Open crown. Roddick has lost in the Wimbledon Finals twice to Federer, but could the third time be the charm? Clearly, Federer will be a huge favorite, but Roddick definitely has a chance if he can execute a shrewd game plan including serving VERY well. Roddick needs to attack Federer’s second serve whenever he has the opportunity by hitting out on his forehand and occasionally chipping and charging. Roddick can’t out-rally Federer from the baseline, but he can force the action by keeping the points short, blasting his forehand whenever possible, sometimes to Federer’s forehand side to expose his backhand, and also approaching the net as much as possible. The keys for Federer will be to hit his first serve well, be aggressive and take advantage of the few looks he has during Roddick’s service games, e.g. a second serve on a break point, 0-30 in a game, and keep his occasionally erratic forehand in check, especially on the key points. If he wins the title, Federer will regain the Number One ranking from Rafael Nadal and also complete the French Open and Wimbledon "double play." We present our analysis of the players below:
Roger Federer Andy Roddick
Form Played well throughout tournament Solid and very impressive semi
Fitness Seems fit Lean and strong
Experience Seventh straight Final Third Final, but first since 2005
Pressure No Nadal or Murray Not sure he’ll have another chance
Intangible It all started here in 2003 Gotta get lucky sometime, no?







