Roger and Andy

Andy Roddick is the Maria Sharapova of men's tennis. Except, of course, that most sports pundits and commentators, unlike the rest of their news breathern, must note their heterosexuality, and thus comment on the beauty (for those into it) of Maria Sharapova, whose probably about as tall as Roddick.

Americans want a new hero to replace Agassi. I don't think they particularly care if it's James Blake or Andy Roddick. At this point, Blake doesn't seem to have the same kind of imposing game that you expect from a top player. He doesn't have Roddick's serve, nor does he have Federer's all around awesomeness.

Roddick had been slumping lately, until he and Jimmy Connors agreed to work with one another. Most people point to Connors making Roddick more enthusiastic, more pumped up. While that is the most noticeable change, it's not the change that is making the difference (though one should never underestimate how emotional displays can rattle an opponent).

This biggest change is teaching Roddick to use his groundstrokes to come to net, something that Connors did a lot when he was playing. Connors wasn't the best volleyer, but he knew how to pick and choose his time to come to net and cut a point off short. Roddick seems to be playing smarter shots, and he has the one thing Connors didn't have: a good serve.

Although Federer won this match running away in the fourth set, Roddick really did have his chances. He had break points in the third set to get up an early break. Andy lost primarily due to the reason he typically loses. He gets impatient and hits sloppy shots. Top players can hit good shots with few errors.

Oddly, Roddick played many of his shots up the middle. He rarely hit shots near the sidelines. I don't know if he was trying to reduce angles against Federer or not.

Federer, for his part, is able to jump on any weak shot and knock it for a winner. At least, I felt that Roddick didn't feel completely intimidated by Federer, as Agassi often felt frustrated playing Sampras.

Roddick's other weakness was his serve. While he had been serving at quite a high percentage throughout the tournament, he missed lots of first serves. Given the pace of his first serve and the low percentage of points won on his second, you would think Roddick would try to play more percentages on his first serve. Had he done that, he might have put more pressure on Federer to break.

Was it a high quality match? It wasn't too bad. It could have had more exciting points. Overall, play was decent.

But with every win, Federer is getting closer to Sampras's record, which seemed only a scant few years ago, something that wasn't that close. Now it seems like Barry Bonds breaking Mark McGwire's home run record (alas, both tainted with rumors of steroids) or Ron Dayne breaking Ricky Williams record for four years of rushing in college.

Roddick hasn't even been that close to beating Federer. He's much like Courier or Agassi against Sampras. Sampras would dominate the two of them.

I didn't see any of the Sharapova-Henin-Hardenne match. I'm sure the advertisers were happy Sharapova won, and it will mean more dollars for her pocketbook. Will Sharapova become a great player? Who knows? But this is, alas, her first step to that goal.