Moxie629 said:
^No one had a muppet attack. Beyond responding to you, mostly everyone here is discussing the tournament at hand, where Rosol went out in the first round. I, and even Carol, said that Rosol played great in that Wimbledon match. And nobody denied that he might not have done better in that other match you mention. We just ignored it, mostly. You were doing fine touting it (five times by my count now, just on this thread.)
And in fairness to you, I'm glad Rafa didn't have to play him today. I have no idea how that would have gone, but Nadal wasn't so sharp, and the rhythm match with Baggy was better for his preparation. You're given Broken credit for understanding you, but he's the one debating you on all this Rosol and Soderling history. You should really look back on the thread before you complain about how people reacted.
You should also read it properly as you were one of the people who objected to the post. Broken was the one Nadal fan who pointed out there was nothing wrong with what I said about Rosol.
Compare that to getting all defensive and touting some nonsense about Rosol needing to work on his legacy as you typed which was an unnecessary comment about Rosol, who I never claimed was some amazing player but simply that he gave him almost equally as much of a hard time 2 years later and that his knee(s) had very little bearing on the result. Instead of realizing the obvious (that he was actually 1 missed volley away from being up 2 sets to love) you wrote the below slagging his legacy. I think you know enough about to realize if he'd actually gone up 2 sets to love there was a strong chance he'd have won the match and he missed out on being up 2-0 in sets by 1 point. Not really that hard to grasp and there wasn't much of a need for the part below.
"You mentioned twice that he was almost up two sets to love. Which isn't actually being up two sets to love, and it's still not a win, even if he had managed it.
Poor Rosol really needs to work on his legacy."
http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3972&pid=188808#pid188808
And you should also go back and read Carol's replies properly too as we had the usual Nadal fan excuses about him only losing because of injury and that he would've won otherwise. It never gets old. As for Broken debating Soderling and Rosol, there's really not much to it imo. Both sides played differently each time. The winner played better when they won and the loser played not as well. It's not rocket science how the winner won. Not much to debate really.
http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3972&pid=188817#pid188817