Djokovic

Have you answered any of my questions yet?

When was Ancic's best Wimbledon 2002 or 2004?

When did Fed lose in 2002 at the French Open?

Go and answer those questions rather than creating your own

Why were so many grass court specialists doing well in 2001 and 2003 but not in 2002?

You never answered my original question and started asking your own question

Why did Hewitt after easily winning the tournament in 2002 lose to Karlovic in Round 1?

Don't talk about Fed in 1999 and 2000, he had won zero slams by then.

Why did Philppoussis reach the final in 2003 if the courts had slowed down?

Your biggest arguments are Federer in 1999 and 2000 results where he was a complete nobody. He hadn't won a slam and was nowhere near the top 10.

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)

posted 9 minutes ago

You can't just make erroneous statements and then just try to shift the net to suit.

You said Fed was crap on slow courts when he was young, but I showed you his best GS results in his first few years as a pro were at the FO.
========================================

Even if he he got to 1 quarter final and 1 4th round, he was still rubbish at slams on clay, this was the reason he got spanked in R1 in 2002 and 2003. He was well capable in 2002 on a slow court to lose to Ancic, and in 1999 and 2000 anyone could've beaten him at slams, he was rubbish at the time.

Why can't you lot accept the simple fact that in 2003 the courts were much faster than when your favourite negative baseline grinders won Wimbledon? Instead I've heard the most pathetic excuses ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHsg2M25PzY&t=6430s

Above is the Wimbledon Final of 2008 and check the video from:
27:45 to 28:50

The Comparison from 2003 courts to 2008 courts.

FFS is culer still going?

Think he's more hafi actually.

Some people think you're Culer Barry.