good match

news:1117481332.78­4440.267370@g47g2000­cwa.googlegroups.com­...>Yes, but Safin should have won it. I was surprised he didn't attack>Robredo's weak backhand more.

-еsmund

-- > "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,> the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands> of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form> they please".>

- Thomas Jefferson>

as usual, steve is wrong. these 2 guys did a lot pf errors:> safin 73, robredo - 52.> also if you see the match, they both played much below own> good level. also marat had blisters!

good match

SAFIN = The biggest waste of talent tennis has seen. Even with him> wasting his talent he was still able to win 2 slams. Makes you wonder> how good he could really be if he was a smarter player.

Maybe he is just not good enough. His low risk game means he can lose to> anyone if he is having a off day, of course it means he is almost unbeatable> if he is having one of his best days.>

Maybe he is just not good enough. His low risk game means he can lose to> anyone if he is having a off day, of course it means he is almost

You mean *high* risk game, surely?

Safin was good enough at 20 to beat your hero Sampras in straights at> the U.S. Open final.>

Safin was also good enough to defeat Federer at the semis of the> Australian this year.

Whisper wrote:>

Safin was good enough at 20 to beat your hero Sampras in straights at> the U.S. Open final. Oh, yeah, I forgot, Sampras was tired, bored,> didn't bring his A-game, had a sore knee, had a tough draw, blah, blah,> blah.>

Safin was also good enough to defeat Federer at the semis of the> Australian this year.>

2 outstanding performances in half a decade that led to slam wins.

does that mean Federer has had only 4 outstanding performances his entire> career?

What matters is your form at slams, apart from the 2 times he won Safin has> rarely played his best at these events (AO 2004/AO 2002 perhaps).>