You still give no credit to the opponent. You really do never believe that Roger gets out-played. Huh. Amazing.
:lulz2: Yeah, then why so many excuses? For example: Del Potro got the best of him 2 important times at the USO, and you give Juan Martin no credit, in that you only blame Roger for the loss. It's not the same, you know.
Well done for trying. The guy was rubbish through out the whole tournament, if you want to believe he was fine against Delpo go right ahead. I think deep down you know this isn’t excuse making of the RG 09 level, but good effort anyway!
I don't think the bolded is actually true. And I don't think most of us do. Often, with elite players involved with lessers, there is a clear winner because one is a superior player. But when two top players are involved at the same time, it's more likely a question of the better on the day. In many cases, the loser doesn't actually "suck." As you say, there are shades of gray. The notion of "sucking" is a dismal performance. What I saw from that match was not dismal from Federer or "sucking." He just played less well.
I didn't say he was "fine" against Del Potro. I said that I didn't see the obvious signs of back injury that I was expecting, based on the report from the front, and the post-game later. And I have watched Roger play when it's clear he's compromised in his back. It's not hard to detect. I know Darth's script chapter and verse: 'how could he have gone 5 sets via Tiafoe,' and 'Youzhny...please?!' I'm actually willing to believe the Fedfan assessment that he was a bit compromised in the back. What I don't buy is that he was "rubbish." He was rather better than mediocre, by his standards. He wasn't stellar, and I know you all expect that. As to the the comparison with the 2009 FO and Rafa, it wasn't even in my mind. You're hanging onto that just a bit too much, my friend.
"Most of us" haven't even had time to read this, or react. I don't think there's any "hair-splitting" with the term "suck." It's an extreme term, which means to play dismally. I don't think Roger played dismally in that match. He didn't play up to his standards, but that means fair to mediocre, I'd say. He can sometimes beat players with that level. You're the one who said there are "50 shades of gray" (which did make me laugh a bit,) in most matches. And yet, you think a loser either wins, or "sucks." Again, I don't think that's how most matches go. And I be surprised if you do, really.
I'm only talking about the Del Potro match. The key comment is "he was fucking pathetic by his standards." This is where you guys get all gooey and crazy. I'm not saying it's not possible that he was hampered, but I will say it wasn't visible. But that's not my point: you guys think that if he's not brilliant, it's clear there's something wrong. His footwork was good, and his serve seemed on most of that match. Whatever hampered him only took him down a peg. All I'm saying is that he didn't "suck." He wasn't awful. He played to a reasonable version of his game, and Del Potro beat him. Give the man the credit. And it's not "either/or." Just because Superman Roger didn't show up, he surely wasn't horrible. That's what I expected to see when I watched that match the other day, based on what you, especially, Darth, had said. Surely, he wasn't stellar, but he wasn't terrible. Hampered or whatever, he was a mediocre version of himself, and he lost.
I think I got your post. You said they either win, or "suck," or, alternately, play badly. I'm debating that notion as an absolute.
I'm not sure what I didn't understand. This is likely the post you're citing:
