Moxie629 said:
Simon is not having "off days" as much as he's not as good a player, which I'm sure you agree with, too. The OP is about more nuance than I think you're willing to give it. Nobody said Grigor was some chump who upset Murray out of the blue. Fastgrass started crowing that Dimitrov exposed Murray for something like the overrated fraud that fastgrass believes him to be, and folks countered that argument. Likewise, I'm sure I didn't say that Federer wasn't tired in that Olympic final match, because I know he was. The point is, it's not the sole contributing factor to why he lost, and when someone like fastgrass tries to put it like that, then some will counter that argument. How much you or I weigh the effect of fatigue and age on Federer compared with how well Murray played is the place for debate.
I don't think anybody claims Murray is a fraud. At least, I certainly don't. However,
I don't see any "extenuating circumstances" in that match. The mere fact that Andy played
poorly in itself cannot be a "extenuating circumstances"; if there is an "external reason"
(there may be, at least we don't know of anything yet) which caused the "poor play", that
can become an "extenuating cirucumstance" depending on the external reason (it cannot
be something trivial such as somebody put more sugar in his coffee that morning
and so he was upset and could not focus on the game).
The main point that you are missing here is that "he played poorly" does not
put any positive spin on the loss. Of course, people lose when they play poorly.
What else do you expect? How is that an "extenuating circumstance"?
Seriously, look yourself in the mirror and utter the sentence "Murray would
have played well in that match if only he did not play poorly". How do
you think you sound?
In contrast, try saying "Rafa would have played well in AO final if only
he did not injure his back" or "Fed would have played well in Olympics final
if only he had more time to recover". Do they sound somewhat reasonable
despite being debatable?
