RODDICK WAS GLORIOUS BUT FEDERER TRIUMPHED

What I had written about Federer in the earlier piece “Federer the great” ( 13 June 2009,) was :

“From 31 May 2009 the chara dasha was of Dhanu Makar Karka from where the Amatyakaraka Venus aspects the tenth house.In transit Saturn on his tenth lord Venus in the lagna and Jupiter aspecting his tenth lord from Kumbha is a favourable double transit helping him achieve a title from a weak opponent. This favourable period continues during the coming Wimbledon contest."

Federer winning this title is explainable through astrology. It became clearer when injured Nadal withdrew, erratic  Novak Djokovic was never a challenge to his supremacy, Tommy Hass was not well equipped to defeat Federer and Andy Roddick had a very poor record against Federer. Andy Murray could be a threat if he played better than what he did in the US final of 2008. One did not need astrology to predict the victory of Federer but I had predicted it on 13 June , much earlier with astrological reasons.

The match between a rejuvenated Roddick now a complete player and a great threat to other ranked players was absolutely thrilling with tiring Roddick losing to fitter Federer. Rightly it has been said, Federer did not  beat Roddick but outlasted him.

What I felt has been said by Simon Barnes of the Times London thus “The end was mercilessly swift. Federer had waited and waited, never buckling. He didn’t beat Roddick, he outlasted him. In the end it was the only ploy that was going to work against a man inspired, against a man who served thunderbolts in the manner of Zeus. Roddick served better, and for much of the match played better, but Federer has another very important weapon in his armoury. He is better at winning championships.”

The truth was  that seeing the rather poor record of  Roddick against Federer the best I had expected in the Wimbledon final was a four set match with Federer winning with his customary grace, waving to the crowds, kneeling down on his legs and doing something like a yoga asana in a burst of emotion. But it was different, he did not fall on his knees but stood upright waving to the crowds as though saying “ I have won even though today I may not have been a convincing winner”. Yes he made history much like Babar the invader against
Rana Sanga.

But in the match between two Andys, Murray of Scotland and this ebbulient Andy better known as Roddick, I felt that I was watching a different Roddick with better ground strokes, more net play and lethal backhand, even though two handed, which is rarely graceful like that of Roger Federer.

I had another thought then and thought that Sampras was better than Federer but waited someone else to say that. And that  someone who said it is the great Rod Laver.

“Australian legend Laver, the only man to win two calendar Grand Slams in 1962 and 1969, is a long-time admirer of Federer who will be chasing a sixth Wimbledon title when he meets Andy Roddick later in the day. But he believes that if the two had the opportunity to meet on a regular basis at the All England
Club, seven-time champion Sampras would have the edge. "I think I might take Sampras, only because of his serve," said the 71-year old. "He's got a big serve and volleying ability. He's a little more versatile when it comes to the power game.

"Roger could certainly get the ball at his feet. But to return a big serve like that, not many players are used to a person serving that hard and getting close to the net and volleying with success."

No one refers to Marat Safin of Russia who defeated both Sampras in his fading years and Federer in at his peak more convincingly. I had watched both matches when they were telecast live. He defeated Sampras in 2000 US Open. Marat Safin def.  Pete Sampras, 6–4, 6–3, 6–3 and Roger Federer in 2005 Australian
Open’s semi final which was one of the finest matches ever played lasting four and a half hours going into five sets and Safin was the convincing winner.

In the Wimbledon final who was the convincing winner ? Federer was lucky as the second set clearly showed when Roddick lost from a winning position In the final set what mattered was stamina and luck both of which were on the side of Federer.

The Daily Mail coverage appealed to me. “Many of those who had arrived eager
with anticipation of Federer’s 15th Slam were converted to Roddick’s cause by the end. Not just through the British love of the underdog, either; more because Roddick was up against a uniquely mighty opponent, yet had fought with such heart and had raised his game to such a level that he did not deserve to be
crushed.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1197724/Only-greatest-won-Roddick.html

Laver is rated, along with Roger Federer, Pete Sampras and Bjorn Borg as among the best of all time tennis greats and such debates are interminable. Federer’s place among the greatest is reserved and to say that he was challenged by Roddick in the finals of Wimbledon of 2009 which Roddick nearly won is a
tribute to the American whose performance will have to be watched in the next two or three years now. That is history now.

I tried to search the horoscope of Roddick but no help came except getting his date of birth on the basis of which I have made a tentative horoscope of his to be corrected later. Here it is.