Ok, before everyone goes nuts...I KNOW FEDERER IS THE BEST. I get it. He's amazing.

That being said, I don't remember a match where anyone (except Nadal) made him work as hard, sweat so much, or hit as well as he had to last night. Andy may have lost in straight sets, but the first two sets were basically decided by 3 or 4 points. So why were the three commentators constantly talking about how great Fed is? It's the US OPEN. And a US PLAYER was TAKING IT to Roger!

If we're going to get US tennis back on top, we need to start recognizing that though Federer is amazing, credit needs to be given to guys like Roddick, who have constantly gone out there, improved their game, and made the world's number one nervous. In Shanghai, Roddick has 2 match points (maybe 3?) and then last night, two sets to remember.

So, why was Roddick's name hardly mentioned in the booth? Anytime he made a terrifc shot, Agassi would say something like "Yeah, great shot, but just the fact that Fed could even get there shows you how great he is." SHUT UP. I know he's great. How bout some attention to the other guy? You know, uh, the American? Our last great hope?

I have a great deal of respect for AA, I got really emotional with him last year when he bowed out, but when HE lost to Federer, I promise you, NO ONE in the booth, NO ONE, forgot to mention what emotion, effort, and pride he put into every point that was played. When was the last time you had numbers like the two of them did last night and had the three guys ignore one of the players?

Roddick plays Davis Cup for his country (Fed does not), struggles every day against a media that likes to blame him for US Tennis problems, and finally when he goes out there and crushes every ball for 3 hours, everyone concludes Fed is just so darn great. Thanks US Tennis Fans and Commentators. Novel idea. Now, Andre, how giving credit where credit is due?

Wow I thought it was just me!

It seemed like every comment out of AA's mouth was how absolutely, incredible and amazing Federer plays. Granted the guy is a wizard on the court but enough. I felt like I was watching a Federer pep rally where AA was the MC and his only goal was to talk about Federer. Andy played an absolutely AMAZING 2 sets against Fed and all we heard was how unbeatable Fed was. "Did you see that shot," "There is a fine line between getting pumped and waking a sleeping giant a very fine line," "Most great players have 2 parts to there game to depend on Federer has about 5" bla bla bla for 3 sets it was all about one person - BTW 2 players played last night Andre.

Am I a Rodick fan - for sure. But first and foremost I am a tennis fan. Andre would have been a great person to interview. To ask the questions that McEnroe started to ask about the differences between Fed and Sampras. But he is decidedly still a fan and absolutely unable to commentate at a professional level if he can't watch a match and discuss both players.

I also liked AA during the last 6 years of his career, appreciated the shows he put on at the Open and what he did for tennis.

But...I can do without his commentating. Give me McEnroe(s), Austin, heck even Bud Collins at any time over AA.

Hmmm... yes, he praised Fed. But the others you listed over him? 50% of the time they dont' even talk about the match or the players you're watching (except for Collins who I know knows what's important).

It's like someone posted the other day, triple match point for Henin and... they were gabbing away, damn near right over the point, they managed to stifle themselves just as it was happening, but it was close.

Don't know how AA would be down the road but last night, praise or no praise, he was impressive.

I didn't see most of the match last night, so I don't know whether Agassi went over the top in praising Federer. It would be pretty hard to go too far over the top, considering what Federer has accomplished over the last few years. I think the comments on this thread prove just how special Federer is as a tennis player -- they're saying that we should lavish praise on players for being competitive with him for two sets, and then losing in three!

I like Roddick, just judging from interviews. He seems like a smart and funny guy, and in general he seems like a good sport, in victory and in defeat. I root for him. But I find this stuff about rooting for him because he is an American totally ridiculous. Why should I root for someone because of the place they were born, over which they obviously had no control? He's "our last great hope"? Hope for what? In what way would any of "us" be entitled to take pride in his accomplishments? If it weren't for this nonsense of viewing athletes as a source of national pride, Roddick wouldn't have to deal with all the crap about letting down "US tennis."

i know they talked a lot about Fed but i also heard them praising Andy, his game, his coaching, how he was taking it to Fed. I felt they gave Andy a lot of due.

I'll grant you may have praised Federer more than usual. It may have been because it was Andre's first time in the booth and he had a lot to say about the guy after playing him and watching him for so long.

Your comment: "If we're going to get US tennis back on top, we need to start recognizing that though Federer is amazing, credit needs to be given to guys like Roddick, who have constantly gone out there, improved their game, and made the world's number one nervous. In Shanghai, Roddick has 2 match points (maybe 3?) and then last night, two sets to remember."

I think the announcers, like everyone else watching, assumed Roger was going to win until they saw a reason to think otherwise. After the first set tiebreak, that assumption only grew. Then the second set went to Federer and he rolled Roddick in the 3rd. Maybe Roddick playing him two good sets and losing both is something to be applauded, but the fact is that he went down in straight sets while playing as well as he probably could. I don't see why you praise the loser in that situation. If anything, it shows that Federer is that much better.

I like Andy, but his only defense is that he came along at a bad time to have the weight of American tennis on his shoulders.

I was just thinking the same thing. Andy is an amazing player who had the misfortune of coming along during Federer's reign of terror. But I guess that's what it's all about -- not just how good you are, but who you are up against when you are at your peak. Would Mac have been the dominant force that he was in his day if he had been up against Federer? Probably not.

Pity. I adore Andy, not just because he's a great tennis player, but because watching him is such a joy -- the fire in his eyes, the determination, the sense of humor. He'll always be #1 to me.

Great job against Federer, Andy. You really almost had him. You'll get him next time.