You realise you're arguing with Barry right

That’s easy because grandpa Fed was rubbish at the time and took the next 6 months off after his pathetic loss to Raonic. Raonic is one of worst slam finalists in history.

The rest of the draw was wide open due to Nadal being injured and Djokovic losing early.

The bigger question should be why did Murray treat a big serving Raonic like a child in that match as if they were playing on a very slow hard court?

Yes, Federer lost in 2002 on a slow Wimbledon court to Ancic. What does that prove? That he was rubbish at slams on slow courts earlier in his career. We already know that

Ancic never did anything in that tournament on the slow courts, got spanked in the 2nd round.

His best performance in Wimbledon was 2004 (surprise surprise). Thanks for proving my point. Wimbledon was much faster in 2004 than in 2002.

The big question for me is how did Williams beat Jankovic in 2007 Aus open on a lighter shade of blue surface if that shade supposedly benefited Davydenko?

comment by Dave The Jackal (U22179)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
As an Englishman, I couldn't care less about Murray.
He's Scottish.
I don't support Scotland when watching football so why would I support him when watching tennis?

He made a "joke" when he was younger about a similar thing.
Inside Murray is playing for Scotland, not Britain. Anyone that thinks otherwise is dim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough ... but I guess your anti-Scottish stance doesn't extend to your football club, which owes most of its history/success to legendary Scots? Odd that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not anti Scottish but when sport is on I support two countries. England first then Spain (Spanish grandad).

I don't support Wales or Scotland when my two teams get knocked out as I have nothing to do with those countries.
This doesn't mean I am anti Ryan Giggs, Sir Matt Busby or Sir Alex Ferguson

Then again, if a British player or manager that are/were affiliated with Man Utd are playing or managing, then I'd want them to do well for their respective country.

comment by JustTrue (U13155)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, Federer lost in 2002 on a slow Wimbledon court to Ancic. What does that prove? That he was rubbish at slams on slow courts earlier in his career. We already know that

Ancic never did anything in that tournament on the slow courts, got spanked in the 2nd round.

His best performance in Wimbledon was 2004 (surprise surprise). Thanks for proving my point. Wimbledon was much faster in 2004 than in 2002.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federer's best GS results in his early career 1999-2001 were at the French Open.

Federer in 2002 got knocked out of both Wimbledon and the French Open in round 1. He was playing garbage and I still think he was rubbish on clay early in his career. In 2004, he won the other 3 slams and easily got spanked on clay in the early rounds.

FO was the first proper bracket he qualified for in '99. He didn't make it past the qualifiers either in Oz or the US.

Every year for three seasons, his results at the FO were his best or equal best GS for the year.

Even his first-ever Masters-1000 title, Hamburg in 2002, was on clay.

It's factual and irrefutable. His best GS results in his early years as a pro came on the slowest court of all, and so did his first M-1000.

Ancic was a better on faster surfaces right? Yes he beat Fed in 2002, but he got spanked in the next round

When was Ancic's best Wimbledon? Was it 2004 or 2002?

And at what stage did Federer lose in the French Open in 2002?

1999 were all R1 defeats

Only in the year 2000 was his best GS result on clay. Round 4

In 2001, he made QF in both French Open and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon was much more special as he beat Sampras on fast grass, the first player to beat Sampras at Wimbedon since 1996 and his QF performance at Wimbledon was much better than his French Open QF

In 2002, he lost both R1 in Wimbledon and French and reached R4 in the 2 hardcourt slams

In 2003, again an R1 French Open loss, and he won Wimbledon

Then from 2004, he won 3 slams and only R3 French Open.

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.

Then you try to tell me it's all about 2002, but that's when he won his first M-1000 ... on clay.

Now you're telling me his R1 loss was because Ancic was a good fast court specialist, and I'll counter saying that on the '99 and 2000 'fast-grass' he lost both times in the opening round to baseliners.

Where are you going to move the net to now?

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.