Do you think if they did a tiebreaker, Federer would have won?

Question

I think he would have. Why did they not do a tiebreaker? I don't get it. If they did it in the 3rd and 4th sets, shouldn't they do it in the 5th.

Answer 1

absolutely.

britain is way behind the times. they aren't going to change. i'm starting  a petition to get wimbledon moved to the USA.

go America!

Answer 2

Maybe , maybe not.

Answer 3

I was rooting for Federer but  honestly i don't think so.

Nadal definately had the overall edge in the game. He seriously hit everything Federer had for him. . . That match was nuts!

Answer 4

I think so.  The U.S. Open is the only major to use a fifth set tie break, the other three say play on until a decisive winner can be decided and despite how much I wanted Federer to win I think that the lack of a 5th set tie break is a good thing.  To your original question, I think Fed would've won.  Federer has a far better record in tiebreakers and the mere fact that he had managed to push the match that far may have discouraged Nadal.  Tiebreaks favor Federer's game over Nadal's because as you saw Federer didn't have too much of a problem winning a few points here and there on Nadal's serve but what he couldn't do except once was win enough in succession to actually break the Spaniard.  However he managed to get mini-breaks in the tiebreaks far more often and seemed to serve even more aces.  Tiebreaks mean advantage Federer but they didn't do one, probably for right reasons.  Of course, I'm only saying probably because I'm a Fed fan and despite my trying to be a good sportsman I am downright bummed right now.

Answer 5

yeah he would've

Answer 6

Of course. I think in the end though it came down to nerves. That match could have gone either way.