If you remember, everyone was saying that Murray's victory over Federer was purely because Federer played so awful and people were trying to take credit away from Andy. In many ways, it was disappointing to see the Fed lose to Canas because it meant Andy wasn't the only person other than Rafa to have beaten Fed since start of last year.
However, having thought about it, surely Canas' performance and victories simply prove that if you play the right game against Roger Federer then it is possible to FORCE him to make unforced errors. I know that sounds strange but I think the fact that the same guy was able to force supposed "awful" performances from Federer 2 tournaments straight proves that in fact maybe Andy should be given more credit for his victory than some people give him.
I happen to think that Canas frustrated Federer and made him look bad and whilst Federer obviously wasn't at his brilliant best, maybe he wasn't as bad as people say. And I think that this proves that Andy did that too.
Hopefully I got my point across with that mumbo jumbo. Thoughts anyone?
__________________
Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive.... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
But I don't think that it makes his victory better than what it was. Maybe a little less important than what it was before, because now we can see that Fed can be beaten by good tennis.
I think the true measure of Murray's win will be when he meets Federer again. And hopefully it'll come in the final of Wimbledon (I'd settle for the semis/final of RG too!)
__________________
To look at a thing is quite different from seeing a thing and one does not see anything until one sees its beauty
This was crossing my mind too. For me though, it was more a refutation of the allegations at the time that Andy did not "win" but that Federer had tanked.
I never believed that, Fed is not the type to tank - you don't get to where he is without being the type of person who hates to lose even at tiddlywinks. At most, he was unhappy at having to play back-to-back tournaments (poor thing, Andy had played far more matches in a row!) and was not playing at his best, but he usually manages to win even when not playing at his best, except against Nadal on clay and now Canas on hard.
I have just recently watched the match for the first time and am even more convinced that he did not tank. He wanted to win - his reaction when hitting the ball out of the court in frustration showed that. He just had a bad day and could not pull himself out of it.
So, Andy can beat Fed when Fed is not at his best, it remains to be seen if he can beat him when Roger is firing on all cylinders. One thing I am pretty sure of: I was, after all, a Federer fan before Andy came along and still am, Andy WOULD have to play at his best.
(I'd settle for the semis/final of RG too!)
