DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Feflyinvelf** · 10-08-2008, 02:33 AM

That's one way to look at it.

But if Rafa hadn't choked away that 0-40 game at 4-3 in the third set (not to mention his 5-2 lead in the 4th set breaker) the match would never have approached darkness in the first place, never would have gone down as the best ever played, and Raja might very well have been humiliated by failing to win even a set against Rafa in consecutive Slam finals.

Both players had to deal with near-darkness, not just Raja.

Rafa deserved to win. Raja deserved to lose.

That's sports.

I don't think he was necessarily suggesting Roger would have won if it hadn't gotten dark, just that it would have been great to see them battle it out until the score was 20-18 or something - to me it was similar to last year's Wimbledon final, you didn't really want either player to lose. His last comment summed it up - Rafa won the match, but it wasn't because Roger ceded it to him.

10-08-2008, 02:33 AM	#23
Feflyinvelf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 351 Senior Member	That's one way to look at it. But if Rafa hadn't choked away that 0-40 game at 4-3 in the third set (not to mention his 5-2 lead in the 4th set breaker) the match would never have approached darkness in the first place, never would have gone down as the best ever played, and Raja might very well have been humiliated by failing to win even a set against Rafa in consecutive Slam finals. Both players had to deal with near-darkness, not just Raja. Rafa deserved to win. Raja deserved to lose. That's sports. I don't think he was necessarily suggesting Roger would have won if it hadn't gotten dark, just that it would have been great to see them battle it out until the score was 20-18 or something - to me it was similar to last year's Wimbledon final, you didn't really want either player to lose. His last comment summed it up - Rafa won the match, but it wasn't because Roger ceded it to him.
	Quote