I'm a new poster here and so I thought that Start da Game was just trolling for kicks, but after going through this thread, I've no option but to accept the shocking truth that he actually believes that every word he says is true.
welcome to tennis 2012........what part of it is shocking? the last time i checked grandslams are outdoor events and they had 8 hours of day light remaining to finish the final that very day outdoors........so obviously shutting the roof citing rain interruptions was nonsense unless they got to a point where they had only 2 hours of day light remaining........
tennis these days at the highest level is played to feed the global sheep like us who are player fans more than sport fans........
why do you think we have only the top 4 competing in slam semis and finals these days? why don't we have a korda vs rios | krajicek vs washington | moya vs corretja type slam finals anymore?
Yes, general shanks. It is indeed an outdoor tournament. But this year has been England's wettest June/early July for a century, and it is fortunate they had a roof. In the final, once the heavy rains came and they shut the roof, tournament rules
dictate that they finish the match with the roof closed, even if the sun comes back out. Now, alternatively, they may have opted to not shut the roof, and wait an hour or two and hope the rain stops, and then continue outdoors (especially early in the tournament). But in the final? They paid millions to put a roof in. Why have a roof if it's not going to be used? And with the biggest TV audiences around the world watching the biggest tennis event of the year, I seriously doubt they would want the audiences to go away in a 1-2 hour rain delay. Roland Garros and the US Open have no choice, and many people constantly complain when the weather is bad and they have no roof. Wimbledon and the Australian Open have the roofs and will use them.
In any event, even if the rain had not come and they hadn't had to shut the roof, I see no reason why Federer wouldn't have won anyway. It might have even been over much quicker. If you remember, Federer had big momentum having closed the second set out with a flourish and looking very dominant to start the 3rd set, while Murray looked to be reeling a bit. We will never know for sure of course, but I think with that momentum Federer might have won the 3rd and 4th sets even easier.
When the roof closed, Murray had a chance to recover somewhat, talk to his coach and the Federer momentum was artificially stopped. To Federer's credit, he came back and still delivered the win. Closing the roof proved not to hurt Federer that much; without the wind, he could focus on pure tactics. Andy's service deteriorated big time - and the roof cannot be blamed for that. But wind or no wind, I don't think Murray would have stopped Federer once he got the upper hand. Just way too much experience on winning majors vs none for poor Andy. Andy will get his chance if he can somehow get lucky and face another player who has never won a slam, or perhaps a 1 timer. It's awfully tough for him with Federer, Djokovic, Nadal in the way. Maybe he'll have better luck at the US Open.