One thing I find interesting is Ljubicic is often potrayed as an example of the weak field of 2005-2006 while Fernando Gonzalez gets alot of praise on this forum. I find that strange. I do think the field in 2006 was kind of weak, and Ljubic at #3 ranked is a bit high for him even in his prime. However I do think he is both a more talented and superior tennis player to Gonzalez. Probably Gonzalez is the better player now since Ljubicic despite his big win a week ago is past his prime, but I think Ljubicic has had the slightly better career and was the better player. As for talent I think Ljubicic is better. One thing that showed me Ljubicic was the more talented player was their match at the 2005 Madrid Masters in the quarters. Gonzalez played maybe the match of his life, perfect tennis, almost no unforced errors. Ljubicic was tired after playing a few weeks in a row and was down 6-3, 2-0, 30-0 Gonzalez serving. Ljubicic still came back to win even with Gonzalez playing perfectly. Gonzalez lost serve at 2-0 from 30-0 to go back on serve when Ljubicic hit 4 winners. He had break points the next game but Ljubicic saved them all with winners. In the tiebreak Gonzalez hit only 1 or 2 unforced errors and still lost it 7-2. In the 3rd set Gonzalez I dont think hit a single unforced error in any of Ljubicic's service games, and the game he lost serve didnt hit a single unforced error either. For Gonzalez it would have been his best chance to ever win a Masters as he probably could have beaten a young Nadal on those fast courts in the final (despite that Nadal came from 2 sets to 0 down to beat Ljubicic in the final). Yet he lost it to Ljubicic, despite playing his very best tennis and making no mistakes. Another sign of Ljubicic's superior talent is that he was able to win his first ever Masters many years past his prime, while Gonzalez could never win one.