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

**zlZ95pjt** · 10-08-2008, 04:44 AM

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.

The match ended before darkness fell so the only way they might still be playing is if Raja held serve at 7-7. But he didn't, so I'm not sure what else the writer could be implying except that near-darkness caused him to lose his serve.

But mainly I took issue with the notion that Raja didn't deserve to lose the match. I don't see it that way.

10-08-2008, 04:44 AM	#28
zlZ95pjt Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 376 Senior Member	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. The match ended before darkness fell so the only way they might still be playing is if Raja held serve at 7-7. But he didn't, so I'm not sure what else the writer could be implying except that near-darkness caused him to lose his serve. But mainly I took issue with the notion that Raja didn't deserve to lose the match. I don't see it that way.
	Quote